Science should not reject or asset atheism. The question falls into the realm of religion and has little to do with science. Science is a totally different paradigm and the two are mutually exclusive in my opinion. Just because I do not believe any God or higher being exists now or has ever existe. As a scientist I find no connection with my lack of belief and my science. I have no truck with religion of any sorts and do not figure my beliefs have anything to do with religion.

Surely not.

he sounds like either an idiot or a propagandist. is he a mormon? at any rate, no, science does not negate atheism. science doesn't actually deal with atheism, which is either a belief in the absence of a deity or a lack of belief in the presence of a deity. science doesn't study that.

g

I'd have to read the article. Can you post it?

Generally speaking, science does not validate any belief, or lack thereof. It's just science. I've certainly seen no evidence that it "rejects" a lack of belief.

Atheism doesn't require science, but it helps
Observation of reality is how I arrived here

Is this the article? It sounds harmless enough. The physicist
in question is an agnostic...just said that scientists shouldn't dismiss the 'social identity' aspects of religion....not that 'science rejects atheism'...or, at least, I didn't understand it that way after reading this article. [phys.org]

Atheism is secular. Personally, I arrived at my atheism by way of Darwin's evolutionary biology approach and by way of natural history and anthropology. The tree of life image...the origin of the human species....the theory of natural selection...the studies of primates as social animals....our genetic similarity to apes. So, to understand human development and our 'place' in the world, it takes a scientific approach that doesn't include supernatural explanations. I reached my atheism by way of natural science (biology, for ex) and social sciences...it isn't the only way to get there, but it can light the path. I am unfamiliar with the article you mentioned, so I will be seeking it out for curiosity's sake.

Salt Lake is where loonies live.

No

Huh? Salt Lake Tribune? Best guess is he's just making crap up.

It seems to me he is 1) Ignoring the basic definition of Atheism and 2) Confused as to who bears the burden of proof in regard to existential claims.

Religious indoctrination is nearly impossible to overcome. Hence the many who study science and cannot stop attempting to fit the doctrines into reality.

Atheism is only a statement about not believing in invisible all powerful imaginary critters. That is all.