This is definitely true, and I don’t think any Christian here is trying to hide or deny that. This is why we start with the Resurrection of Jesus, which is better supported by evidence from a skeptical viewpoint. We don’t start by pointing to the gospels and saying “Look at this guy who healed people! This book says so!” (Although of course, there are many people who are first drawn to Jesus because of his life and moral teachings).
Yes, we do believe in the Virgin Birth and Jesus’ miracles. But that’s because as Christians, we have a very different epistemological structure compared to you as a non-Christian and skeptic. This structure isn’t simply reducible to “because we’re already religious and we’re also gullible”. Rather, it is necessary to maintain the overall coherency of the Christian worldview. It would take some time to explain and is not within the scope of the original article. From your replies so far on this thread it seems that you do not yet have a good idea of how it works. Instead, you’re trying to assess our beliefs using your epistemological structure (which seems to be influenced by a form of positivism) and trying to present that as normative for everyone. Of course, it doesn’t work. It looks ridiculous. As Paul himself says, “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18, ESV).
In writing this article, my point is not to force you to adapt our epistemological structure. Rather, my aim is to show how that structure has points of intersection with the epistemological structures that are commonly used in science, ancient history, and other religiously neutral subjects. These points of intersection are meant to establish common ground so that you can understand a little bit why we believe as we do.