My hypothesis

[SteveII]

1. Why isn't there objective evidence for Christ? What do you call the NT? The life of Christ is the most attested to series of events in ancient history. Christian beliefs are rational and therefore not "wishful thinking" as you charged. 

I have a feeling I know why there is no objective evidence, but I'll play along.
What is objective about the NT?  It was put together to support a belief, leaving out things that was not wanted.
If the NT is objective evidence, then so is the Koran, the Book of Morman, Moby Dick, Harry Potter, etc.
Do you believe in witches?  We have much more evidence from testimony in the Salem Witch Trials that witches are real then we have for any event in the NT.  [A] It's not rational because it is not based in reason or logic.

2. You are spouting nothing but opinion. Are you disputing that atheism leads to existential nihilism? Judging by the fact that atheists account for such a small tiny segment of the world's population, it seems like people are not entirely satisfied with what you have to offer--despite the "information age" premise of the OP. 

Maybe it seems that way because you're a judgemental prick.  Why does a personal relationship with god so often lead to this? [C]

3. You misunderstand Christianity. You probably should know more about what you mock. Again, you keep conflating people's failure to keep to the very clear tenets of Christianity with Christianity. Poor argumentation.

But good evidence against god changing lives, as well as belief itself.  If I believed that a god was real, if I knew it in my heart, if I could "talk" to him (as so many claim to do) my behavior would change dramatically.  But it seems no more influential in peoples lives than the usual mundane things. [D]

And if I misunderstand christianity, its no ones fault the the sources I've been taught from and have read. (raised RC, majored in Religious Studies).[E]  Hell, it seems any three christians you get together can't agree on it, and one will claim another misunderstands it.  It's an old ploy to cover the fact that it's all blind faith and wishful thinking. [F]

A1. The first NT documents were letters written to churches who already believed the overall theme of Christianity. So now we have two groups of evidence: multiple churches existed throughout the Roman empire by 50AD and the documents written to them--believing the same thing about Jesus.
A2. Historians believe that there are documents that pre-date the gospels from which the gospels we have (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) referred to --written well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. So now we have 3-4 other pieces of evidence to add to the fact that people believed the content just following Jesus' death.
A3. We have the gospels themselves written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and distributed to the churches that already believed in the events they portray. More evidence for what people believed to be true.

The only evidence we will every get of events like this that happened in the first century is written. We can quite reasonably infer from the multiple sources of evidence that a large group of people (including the authors of the NT) believed what was written because they witnessed or knew and believed the witnesses of the events.

These and other facts make the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus the most attested to series of events in ancient history. So your comparison of the Koran, Book of Mormon, Moby Dick, and Harry Potter misses the mark as a comparison.

B. Tell me what is not based in reason and logic. You seem to be unfamiliar with Christianity so I'm going to need some sort of hint. 

C. Ad hominem attack--which seems to be the basis of your entire argument in this and other threads. 

D. All it would take is one person who experienced God changing his/her life to invalidate your argument. 

E. All of your inch-deep objections to Christianity have been discussed for hundreds if not thousands of years. I think it is more likely that you came here to join in bashing religion to make yourself feel better about your opinions than to really understand what the other side thinks, ask questions, and learn. If I am right and the reason is the former, then you are in good company--there are many who think that way. If you are here for the latter, there are some from all ideologies you could learn something from. 

F. More opinion. More ad hominem reasoning.