I can complain all I want. The premise of the thread is based on ignorance. Quoting: flashlight
For instance: The blood of Christ....
This was actually derived from the mystery religion. The holy grail filled with wine is a representation of the blood that comes from a woman's birth canal during menstruation, not the blood of Christ. This ritual was taken over by the Patriarchal Society. Males can't give life like females do, so to symbolize life was to draw blood, which could only be done by injury.
Even the cross. It's derived from the solstice and equinox division lines on the Zodiac calendar.
Of course you can complain all you want; I wasn't telling you not to. What I was saying is that you need to ask yourself that question.
But who cares whether you think the premise of the thread is based on ignorance? We don't have to agree with you, and surely you know that many Christians were once atheists, others have been respected and peer-reviewed scientists, and still others are very well educated in linguistics, archaeology, and philosophy. If you want to go by averages or majorities, my experience with atheists is that they have a much larger share of ignorant and illogical people than they'll ever admit.
You make a baseless assertion about the concept of blood atonement being derived from mystery religion, but neither of us can verify this, and in fact there are plenty of scholars who would argue effectively for the opposite. Don't make the common mistake of thinking that no oral teachings came before the written ones; there is simply no way to say which oral teachings came first. So I can assert with every bit as much legitimacy as you, that the teachings of the Bible preceded all others, which are corruptions of the original truth.
So you see, I disagree with you on an equal basis, which means you can't claim that only your opinion is rational or educated.