It seems from what you wrote throughout this thread that you think both religion and scientific speech adopted by atheistts brought the same number of "valid points" and "strong arguments" and so they are at the same level importance in the debate. But historically religion and religious institutions have been wrong about most if not every aspect of nature and the universe ( flat, 6000 years old earth/ the sun revolves around the earth/ intelligent design, etc...)

Scientific progress in fields like Astronomy, Physics and Molecular Biology have uncovered many verifiable truths. Those discoveries cannot be equated with the folkloric misconceptions found in religious scripture. The sacred texts of the most broadly practiced religions today are full of such misconceptions and cannot represent in any way an alternative to actual verifiable scientific facts.

It's true that Science doesn't have all the answers yet, but it doesn't invent fables to fill the gaps like religion does. Scientists are aware of Science's current limitations and of the extent of its potential. Religion proclaims possessing absolute truths while reciting ancient legends written centuries ago. Science is malleable, evolving whenever new realities come to light. Scientific knowledge is growing as humanity as whole grows and matures. Religious scripture remains the same, religious teachings are rigid and stagnant. The only way some religious factions evolved was by abandoning significant parts of their previous teachings in favor of more scientifically inclined ones.

So when it comes to facts about the universe, and I'm not talking about morality or "ideology" here, I think it's safe to say that religion is really close to being 100% wrong, scientifically speaking.
Today, the only acceptable way by which we determine if a certain allegation is "right" or not is the scientific method, that means finding tangible or measurable evidence to support a certain hypothesis. We can't possibly assess a scientific hypothesis by going back to some old book about talking snakes, flying mules or multi-headed animal demi-gods. So not only are Science and Religion not equal but it's also impossible for science to prove religion is right, because it has already proved it wrong about many things.

You're talking about Atheist "ideology", but I don't think that's a thing since the only trait atheists have in common is not believing in any deity, but other than that they belong to very different currents of thought. Still, it doesn't make any sense saying that science can prove atheists and religious people are both right, that just defies logic. The scientific consensus at any given moment in History simply cannot be simultaneously with and against a certain idea.

You also brought up the idea that God, the Universe, and Energy could be different names of the same entity.That is an interesting angle of looking at it, but it doesn't make much sense to me.

A God that is worth worshipping or at least aknowledging is a moral entity, that has intentions, motives, caracter, that has a mind of its own. The universe as we know it is nothing more than the sum of its manifestations ( and Energy is one of those manifestations), it has no ulterior motives, no intentions behind the way it behaves, it is not governed by any ideals but merely by laws of physics, it is devoid of any conscience or moral drive. The universe does not think or feel, it can't see us or judge us or care about us, it just exists.

The majority of religions are based on the worship of Deities, that have a long list of human-like characterics and actions: they're merciful, they're violent, they love, they punish, they get angry, they judge, they forgive, they save, they curse, etc... So I don't see how the Universe, with its absolute indifference and inexistant conscience can fit the frame of a "God" in the way religion presents it.