I think it's the other way around. Science contributed to atheism.

Most atheists are atheists because they are evidence based - not faith based. When the scientific method was discovered it was shown to be much more reliable than faith.

In one of my favorite Family Guy episodes, Stewie builds a device that allows him to jump between parallel dimensions. He takes Brian with him to one of the universes and it's all futuristic and Brian is like whoa where are we? And Stewie says this is a universe where Christianity never existed so there was no repression of science

I totally disagree with the last quote. I think that atheism and science both arise from critical thinking. That's why most scientists are atheists. They go together.

No. Science has to be agnostic. The scientific process demands that scientists have no beliefs other than "best interpretation of available data". There is no evidence either for, nor against, the existence of a sentient god, so a decent scientist would simultaneously both believe, and disbelieve the existence of god, until evidence in either direction was provided.
God exists. God has been charged as the force that created the universe. Whatever force caused matter and energy to become matter and energy, whether it was created, or transformed from a a different isotope, to a scientist, is god... Whether the appearance of matter and energy was the action of a sentient entity, or mere statistical probability in an infinite time, and space, is, at this time, unknown, as there is no evidence available to us. An atheist believes that there is no sentient god. A scientist believes that there is no evidence, one way or the other, at this time... but will accept whichever, if evidence becomes available.
Just my opinion.

I believe science has given much needed fuel to the intellectual. Science allows them to dismiss primitive beliefs from a time when the answer was god did it if man could not explain it otherwise.due to the increase of knowledge from science logically minded people do not have to lean on the crutch of religion anymore.

I think atheism is a modern response to theism. The fact is a lot scientists studied the universe to understand "god's creation" but also studied it for practical and business reasons. However as the centuries of evidence mounted against theism, especially in Renaissance and Enlightenment periods, atheism became a serious position to take and we've been fighting, and winning, albeit slowly, that battle since then.

All Atheism is, is a lack of belief in any gods. Science is separate from Atheism.

There are different kinds of atheists and unless you clarify that point, confusion results. For example Aristotle was an atheist in that he rejected belief in the mythological gods and goddesses of his day. Yet he argued for a “prime mover”.

https[learnreligions.com]

Max Planck was not interested in dogmatic religious beliefs based on myth, yet he espoused Universal Consciousness. For John Wheeler it was a Participatory Universe—David Bohm, the Implicate Order. Donald Hoffman talks about Conscious Realism—the list goes on, and in fact, half of all scientists in the US express belief in some sort of higher power.

As those with courage, intelligence and open minds gain broader perspectives, they reject belief in religious dogma and mythical beings, and they become enthralled with the deeper questions of ultimate reality. Atheism is just a label for an opinion, and has no major role in the development of science.

I think they followed parallel paths until they converged. From earliest times there have been philosophers and movements which questioned and went against the orthodoxies of their time regarding belief in a god or gods. As it was usually punishable by death to voice these opinions, they were largely kept secret by those who held these views. It has only been since the time of the Enlightenment in the 17th & 18th centuries that it became possible to identify with having an atheist belief. At around the same time scientists were beginning to make discoveries which led to questioning the bible...but it was another century before Lyell, Wallace and Darwin would change thinking sufficiently to lend any great weight to countering the creationist views of how the world was formed, and had changed over time, due to evolutionary processes. Quite naturally most scientists are also atheists, it’s what one would expect, but the more surprising fact is that not all are.

Science contributed to the rise of Atheism.

I think access to science and reason and philosophy help make people agnostic or atheist.

"Science could and does work without atheism, and atheism remains a position adopted largely for philosophical
and ethical, rather than scientific reasons." - I think that this statement is false! The scientific mindset does not make religious thinking possible.

I'd say yes. Why would anyone search for real answers if they believed in magical fairy tales?

I think that the primary contributor to the rise of science has been and will be simply a desire to understand, and to use such understanding to make human life better. I think that the rise of science has contributed to the growth of atheism.

The Renaissance was full of religious people. Isaac Newton, possibly the greatest scientist to live, was quite religious. I don’t see much correlation between religion and the lack of scientific thought.

Above is a fine article, but I am not sure we can say the vast majority of great scientists are atheists. Consider Francis Collins, the head of MIT mapping the human genome. He wrote a book about why he is a Christian. I think only a little more than 1/2 of scientists are atheists. I can't imagine how that can be, of course. I think Christian scientists get more grant money. just saying. I guess emotional awe and wonder regarding nature can lead one to believe it had to be created. I think if scientists (or anyone) could figure out how life arose out of inorganic chemicals that would go along way.

I think common sense had made rise to science and science made atheism...

While that's a nice thought -- most scientists throughout history have been religious. Some people are curious about the world and universe. Many people slaughtered by religions around the world and history have been poets, philosophers, and scientists. Religion cannot stand for any type of thinking that might disagree with their 'way of life'.

Contribute

Cynicism is the origin of good science.

The methods and philosophies of science make it hard to accept things that have not been verified, such as the existence of god, gods, or magical beings. I think atheism rises from science, not the other way around.

Science no, but you could make a better case for statistics. In “Against the Gods” by Peter Bernstein, he talks about how the we started using mathematics to learn that there’s a pattern to things like floods, droughts and volcanoes that could be predicted rather than just attributing it to the will of deities

Regardless of what others say, science appears to operate on a desire or need to know something while religion operates strictly on dogma. This makes it hard for me to put them together in any form. We do know that in the past Islam was very much into science but that appears to have changed today. As this all unfolded over time I do not see anyone viewing it the way we view atheism today. One big reason for this would be the absence of social media. Back then social media was present only in books that one might read.

Just human curiosity & feared plagues, methinks