That the gods are man made is not a discovery of recent times but was known by the thinkers in antique and started to be obvious again some 500 years ago, as the whole continents were discovered that appeared nowhere in the holly texts. Soon enough, the heliocentrism was discovered and got the magnificent scientific explanation with Newton. And so on and on: today we know that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, that we’re all made of the stuff either made in the Big Bang or inside of the stars... It’s simply not matching any “holly” text. So whichever of those you’d like to believe, there’s your main problem, not the people who typically just don’t believe in one more diety than you.
Of all the possible threats that science might pose to Christian doctrine, it's odd to choose heliocentrism and the age of the Earth as examples. Those facts are fully compatible with the Nicene Creed, and few serious Christain thinkers have ever thought that the Bible had to be interpreted as a scientific textbook. As far back as the third century, Origen was pointing out that the creation narrative shouldn't be taken literally.
Notably, the Catholic church doesn't have a problem with the current scientific theories of the creation of the world. They don't take Gensis literally.
They view the creation story in contrast with other creation stories of the religions of the time. Notably, that there is a single, eternal God directing all things for good rather than a pantheon of gods in conflict.
> most atheists tend to have faith in science without actually understanding science
quoting OP because you kind of just confirmed his point. no, we do not know that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, that we’re all made of the stuff either made in the Big Bang or inside of the stars. these are theories, the most fundamental axioms of which still escape us, if they exist at all. their success should not be turned into the deceptive illusion of having reached true knowledge.
