Is the fundamental teachings(Dharma) of Buddhism safe from atheistic/scientific based scrutiny?

DON' READ ALL OF THIS IT'S RETROACTIVELY LONG AND JUST MEANT TO PROVIDE A CONTEXT INTO WHICH THE QUESTION IS INTENDED FOR.

essentially,through my experience,reading and reflection i have found that philosophy and metaphysics severely lacking, in essentially giving me "Eudaimonia" or "conclusive-answers" in the areas it endeavors/tries to answer. For example in the field ethics Aristotle mechanically provides a sound/simple philosophy to live by,however due to the affects of emotivism and subjective-relativity i resorted to the philosophies of Nihilism , stoicism and to a degree asceticism at different times.However,i now find in comparison to the Dharma,philosophy is severely lacking in insight and wisdom.

However given that i'm still a relativist and find that like Aristotle "what is good for one may not be for another" and still hold the empirical doctrine that
insight,wisdom and knowledge can only be Ascertained only by experimentation and by trial and error.In fact just yesterday i read the novel "Siddhartha" by Herman Hesse because i got sick/tired/bored of reading the Dharma.

Also when it comes to the matter of religion and God, the areas of theology,ontology and Christian apologetics relies on blind faith and fanatical loyalty on their "infallible revealed knowledge/texts" while their logical counter-weight/parts made up of metaphysics,science and philosophy.
merely advise us to be skeptical of everything beyond and within our sense experience and that the best rationale we can take is just to suspend judgement in the face of insufficient information.

Then there's what i call rhetorical arguments that offer present themselves to be a gambit on either side to essentially provide the finisher.For example the kalam cosmological argument basically "the question what happened before the big-bang?" in addition to the law of casualty must mean that god exists.Then Stephen hawking declares that time itself began at the big bang therefore it didn't have a cause since time itself began at that moment and asking what happen before that is like "asking whats north of the north pole?"
As in the north pole begins at that location.

another popular one argument that i regularly see religious people use to try to rationally defend their beliefs :(even though i personally believe that if they said to me in such a position that if they had a "personal relationship with god is enough/sufficient to me and i would end the argument.since i know from experience that a "subjective-shield" is impenetrable to logic in addition to the laws/philosophies of emotivism/relativism and determinism that govern our lives.)

Anyway;intelligent design or the anthropic principle will almost be certainly used however there are many fallacies with to the unbelevent/mysteriously way philosophies under which their god/gods operate in.As it simply fails to account for the totality/suffering of nature/beings we observe today.

wherein the Dharma/Tripitaka provides a sound grounding/explanation to understand the universe and nature as we observe it today.As in comparison to other doctrines and dogmas it actually corresponds to what is going in the world today.

So my question:Is the fundamental teachings(Dharma) of Buddhism safe from atheistic/scientific based scrutiny?

Essentially boils down to the fact that Buddhism doesn't really have a god,actually discourages rites,rituals, sacrifices,asking for favors from gods etc.And my opinion compatible with science,in a way that other religions are not.And when a skeptic does try rationally disprove it like any other religion with an open mind more often than not he/she would actually become a follower of the Dharma themselves as they grasp the grandeur/universality and truth it offers.

And if not never mind as the Buddha himself said that if his teachings didn't "suite/convince/convert" someone it doesn't matter since he himself claimed that he didn't have a monopoly on the truth and that his path wasn't the only one to enlightenment/happiness etc.However due to the open-mindedness/ intellectual freedom he presented in his teachings and philosophy.This would have ironically inspired/encouraged laypeople to take study his teachings.

I don't know if i have answered my own question however this information is just meant to provide some context to the question i have put forward.

Note:the metaphysical/cosmology aspects are not in defense here,just the 4 noble truths,philosophy and the basics.