Even as a Christian, I have to admit that Christianity is a very strange religion. There are many things in Scripture that just don't make sense, at least from a scientific perspective. Virgins, for example, do not give birth, nor do dead men rise from the grave. These are very strange things. Miracles, by definition, do not conform to normal reality.
On top of things that don't make sense scientifically, there are things that don't seem to make sense logically either. The Trinity is an excellent example. One God exists in three coequal persons? This is an issue so confusing to our ordinary human minds that we may never fully grasp it until we see God as He is in Heaven.
Given the strangeness of Christianity, you would think its opponents would just attack it for what it is. But instead, all too often, attacks against Christianity come more from what it isn't. Attacks on the Trinity don't accept that God is one God existing in three separate coequal persons, but rather 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. Attacks on the virgin birth often ignore the virgin part and focus on God having some kind of sexual union with Mary. The resurrection? "Cosmic Jewish zombie!!!" All of these things are designed to make Christianity look even more bizarre than it actually is.
But as annoying as these straw man arguments are, they are easy to correct. Christians have an advantage called "the Bible". Our faith is not an individual one, but a collective, and every doctrine is written down in a single, easily accessible book. Therefore, we can tell you that we do not believe snakes and donkeys regularly talk, we do not believe we need to violently force people to convert, and we do not believe in a flat earth.
"But that's just your interpretation".
How strange. "My" interpretations, all too often, seem to be more robust than the unbelieving straw men. What's even stranger is that "my" interpretations are A. based on the words within the text and B. shared by Christians both in the present and throughout history. It's almost as if "my" interpretations are the correct interpretations. So, maybe the correct interpretation is harder to argue against than the "cosmic Jewish zombie" who came to save us because a "rib woman" ate an apple.
But that couldn't be the case, could it? Surely it's absurd to suggest Christianity can stand up to scrutiny? Well apparently, "my version" can. Here's the ultimate problem for unbelievers: When they argue against me, they are arguing against "my version" of Christianity. Thus, even if they don't believe "my" interpretations, it's still dishonest for them to attack their interpretations as if I actually believed them, just as it would be dishonest if I assumed every atheist was like Carl Panzram.
Ultimately, the reason "my" version of Christianity stands so well against scrutiny is because "my" version is true. It is both the correct interpretation of the Bible, and the Bible is the true book about God and His dealings with man. God really did create the heavens and the earth, man really did rebel against Him, God really did curse the earth in response, God really did have a plan of salvation from the beginning, God really did send His Son, Jesus, to be born of a virgin, live a perfect life, die on the cross for sins, and rise from the dead, and confessing Him as Lord and believing He rose from the dead really does result in eternal life.
The above, of course, is an overly simplistic, one paragraph summary of the Gospel. The Bible is a huge book, and the arguments in its defence are far more numerous than a single article can tackle. Nevertheless, I would encourage all my readers to not only read it, but to study it. Seek to understand what the Bible says, and if you believe it, it will bring you closer to God. Continuing to twist it with the selfish goal of proving it wrong will only result in you being wrong. And when you inevitably die and face the God against whom you died in rebellion, that's not a safe place to stand.