reality of science.

[mannequin01]

If a scientific theory or fact does not contradict religious text, what does the evidence of those facts/theories benefit the atheism of a particular scientist who is unwilling to entertain religious text?

[Gloominary]

Such scientific facts and theories, while not contradicting religious texts, give atheists nontheistic explanations for all sorts of things, making them more confident man can truly make sense of and gain mastery over the cosmos, instead of resorting to the God fallacy or other logical leaps to compensate him for his ignorance and lack of control.

[surreptitious75]

Science is an inductive discipline so any of its facts or laws or theories could be falsified at any time

[Fixed Cross]

If a scientific theory or fact does not contradict religious text, what does the evidence of those facts/theories benefit the atheism of a particular scientist who is unwilling to entertain religious text?

Karma is a logical concept, when we understand that the causal matrix we perceive is not the whole one we take part in; the principle is omnipotent, the contexts are responsive to it on different scales and layers and such.
But, this is why atheists want to disprove "god" - karma is a big problem, imposes a great weight on ones actions, and atheists are generally not inclined to consider the long term consequences of their actions. Ignorance of karma perpetuates the wheel of suffering, which has its hooks in your soul.

[mannequin01]

Such scientific facts and theories, while not contradicting religious texts, give atheists nontheistic explanations for all sorts of things, making them more confident man can truly make sense of and gain mastery over the cosmos, instead of resorting to the God fallacy or other logical leaps to compensate him for his ignorance and lack of control.

Nonsense.

The origins are unknown. Fallacies are created by whom? Might it be by the same atheist scientists? So they get to control the flow and direction of "truth"...

I can create my own fallacies, such as the "nothingness" fallacy. Just because we do not know the origins doesn't mean it came out of a type of "nothingness"..

The God fallacy doesn't negate the possibility of it being true, it only serves to discredit it from the potential study. You are assuming it is ignorant otherwise... You have already skewed your perspective assuming there MUST be an atheistic reason.

Now because of this skewed perspective you'll never accept anything as evidence, so everything in existence is already negated as a possible evidence for a god, despite it STILL being possible.

Your reasoning is flawed because it could lead you to search for something you may never find and may never be true, meanwhile negating what could be possibly true .

[Dan~]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

Basically:
I'll only believe you, if you make me believe you, in a specific and obvious style.