>>22220813>Adam gets basic Bible facts wrong like who came on Noah's ark.Weak critique. A minor technicality, along the lines of saying he's wrong because he made a spelling error. Not even a theologian is going to name every character in every spot every time. It's a big book, especially the Jewish part.
>All strawmans and no actual belief in anything.Strawmanning might be a critique except that in my own experience with /pol/ Christians you tend to get accused of strawmanning when you just quote their own book at them; for some reason nobody notices that they themselves, the "Christians," are the ones rewriting the book in their heads, rather than whoever they're arguing with.
The second complaint about "no actual belief" is another one I'm familiar with. Christians when cornered often demand for you to explain your alternative belief system before they'll proceed further. This is so they can pivot away from defending their own religion to attacking their opponents. That has no relevance to discussion of Christianity, either it can stand on its own or it can't. Which is why the request is usually denied, critics are just treating that as the underhanded rhetorical trick that it actually is and refusing to play dumb about it.
>but if you ask him for a debate and don't have enough clout or followers, he blocks you.If any internet personality took debates from literally anyone they'd be debating 24/7/365. Everyone narrows their debates down to people with roughly equivalent or greater prominence; the heavyweight champ doesn't get into street fights.
The rest of this post is just attempts at character assassination. Christians can never just debate the points of their religion in a right-wing space because it becomes immediately obvious that Jesus's values are the exact opposite of their own.
