Suppose I came to you and declared the earth to be flat. You would probably laugh at me. Now suppose I were to talk to a scientifically-minded person about the theory of evolution, or quantum physics, or whatever area of science it might be, and challenge the theories. That person would expect that I know something about the theories. After all, how can I challenge something I know nothing about? And more than a surface level knowledge, I would be expected to understand the theories, at least a little, as the scientists themselves understand them. Then I would be in a proper position to challenge the theories and presuppositions behind them. Anything less than this and I would be ill equipped to talk about these things.
Why is it that so many critics of Christianity think they can attack things, take the authenticity of the Bible for example, without having any understanding of what Christians believe about the Bible in the first place? There are all too eager skeptics who point out all sorts of alleged contradictions, but neglect to see that scholarship has already dealt with such allegations; and beyond this, has found them to be reconcilable and not contradictions at all. “The gospels contradict each other” the quip, but neglect to understand how Christians understand things, that they are not contradictory but complimentary. This is but one example. The form of Christianity mocked by the skeptic doesn’t usually exist at all in the life of any professing Christian. They often mock a mere caricature of theology, instead of intelligently inquiring about the beliefs of the believer as they are.
If you are going to challenge Christianity, you are going to have to look at what Christianity really is, and not only a caricature of what it is presupposed to be. These caricatures are indeed mockeries. Would you not rather get to the bottom of what really is?