I've been using the adjective "atheistic" to circumscribe a type of science that believes elimination of God to be paramount to objectivity. No amount of weaseling will change the fact that the statement "God is beyond the purview of science" is atheistic, nonthesitic, or untheistic. Take your pick. This attribution need not be hyperextended as if science is declaring God to be "non-existent" in essence, but non-existent as falling under the considerations of science.
Than you are ignorant as to what the word "atheistic" means.
No amount of weaseling will change the fact that the statement "God is beyond the purview of science" is atheistic, nonthesitic, or untheistic. Take your pick. This attribution need not be hyperextended as if science is declaring God to be "non-existent" in essence, but non-existent as falling under the considerations of science
That is stupid of you to say. There is a difference between me saying "I cannot see you" and "You do not exist." The first, in essence, is what science says about its ability to consider God. The second is what an atheist says about God. If you cannot see and understand the difference, then further conversation is pointless.