The OP is not interested in a logical debate, you can tell this by the way he intentionally phrased his post to be as offensive to Christians as possible. All he is interested in is insulting people. This thread adds nothing of value.
You may be right. He might have malicious intent and just be trying to invoke an emotional response. But if you try earnestly to minimize your biases and emotional reaction regarding his post, and you look past the fact that he probably has his mind made up, you'll see that there is an underlying desire for him to promote a conversation.
The focus of anyone wanting to argue against his claim should be centered on disputing the claim. Not centered on the OP, nor the OP's presentation of an argument, nor the OP's intentions. By focusing on anything other than the OP's assumption/argument/question presented in the first post, which is basically "Christianity is a myth and delusional. How do 'red pill' thinkers believe in such myths and delusions?",
you are simply deflecting and refusing to refute his claim and such responses themselves do not add value.
OP obviously didn't use the most effective style of communication, but his argument is there nonetheless, and you can either dismiss it or you can provide a counter-argument as to why it may be incorrect. If anyone is interested in the latter, I'll assist with some questions you can address:
Christianity in a nutsell:
"The belief that the creator of the universe fvcked a teenage girl, and that their bastard son's murder eliminated a long-time curse started because a woman was tricked into eating a magic piece of fruit by a talking snake."
That's the essence of Christianity.
It goes without saying that OP didn't attempt to present his argument in a form that best promotes civil discourse. But his argument is there nonetheless. Let's look at it.
His provocative summary of Christianity is based on his frank interpretation of biblical events. If you look past the presentation of his summary you can argue whether the events were myths or not.
There are many ways to address his summary of Christianity if you get to the core of of what he is saying:
Biologically speaking, how does a virgin get inseminated by a non-physical entity? How do you know?
Assuming the Holy Spirit exists, how is the Holy Spirit responsible for Mary's pregnancy? How do you know?
How does a snake communicate with a human? How do you know?
What is the forbidden fruit, why is it forbidden, and how is it able to cast a "curse" on humanity? How do you know?
How does a snake trick a human into eating said fruit?
How can this "curse", which started as a result of eating the forbidden fruit, be eliminated by the crucification of Jesus? How do you know?
If you are unable to answer these questions, the OP would probably ask "
If you don't know or can't explain it, then why do you (or how can you) believe it actually happened?"
Those are just a few starter questions. If you disagree with OP you can dismiss and deflect answering those questions, or you can acknowledge them and provide reasons why they are true. I would note that when answering the
"How do you know?" questions, you CANNOT cite anything within the Bible, as it is an appeal to authority and essentially a logical fallacy (assuming you want to form a rational counter-argument that will be considered by open-minded audiences).
What I'd like to know is how "red pill" thinkers can be conned by such myth and delusion?
And his main question (which is phrased from the assumption that Christianity is a myth):
How can men on this forum, who understand the true nature and reality of women, be rationally inconsistent by seemingly believing that the events portrayed within Christianity actually happened?