[Rebuttal: Scientific American Article] "Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prize-Winning Physicist Says"
The position of most Atheists is that of a "weak" Atheist. The position of Weak-Atheism do not assert that any of the infinity of possible personal gods absolutely do not and could not exist (so long as their definition remains logically sound -- i.e. not one that creates eternal hell and free will but is supposedly benevolent, yet omnipotent and omniscient).
Note: A "personal" god is one which has a mind, a personality and ego -- i.e. "intelligence" and even emotions, and have wants/desires and demands (OR ELSE!!!) and whatnot.
What Weak-Atheism stands for is that, just like assertion of Fairies, Santa Clause, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the assertion of the existence of any personal gods is just as irrelevant a scientific question to ask. Weak Atheists simply asserts that it is more rational to live as though Fairies, Santa Clause, Invisible Pink Unicorns, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any personal gods do not exist.
But if there is to be a god, then it is more likely to be a much simpler impersonal, indifferent one via Occam Razor, rather than the infinitely more complex infinity of different possible personal gods. i.e. If god do exist, then I believe that it simply has to be the Pantheist God; i.e. that Universe (or Multiverse) = God -- a poetic perspective of the cosmos as God, with the underlying laws of physics as its personality, and nothing more.
https://www.pantheism.net/
Bottomline is that all personal-gods are irrelevant and do not have anything to do with the scientific method. But certainly, it is a spiritual meta-physical question that some people may find find meaningful in a personal way -- and not to be rudely imposed upon those who don't.