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.
Of course there is a difference, but there is also a similarity contained in the negative. To the extent, and only to the extent, science declares itself to be incapable of seeing God, or even considering God, it is atheistic. In most cases there is nothing wrong with practicing atheistic science, just as in most cases there is nothing wrong with undertaking science with the understanding that all organized matter is a manifestation of God's handiwork.
It is mere opinion, and not a scientific matter, to assert that God is beyond the purview of science. You cannot make such a statement and be scientific at the same time, especially since science has not, and probably cannot, settle the matter to begin with. You are entitled to that opinion. The federal government, OTOH, is not entitle to establish and support that opinion alone by law. Public schools are obligated by law to allow the position that organized matter is a manifestation of a higher intelligence to be presented in a scientific context.
Maybe not to an ostrich.