Christians celebrate rape, torture, slavery and genocide.

[Undeceived]

Either he was a liar (contradicting his own teachings) or he was a madman (who was very calm and convincing)

False dicotomy. Someone can be convinced of something wrong and be wrong even if he isn't a liar or mentally impaired.

You'd like to think that's possible, but have you ever met a man who thought he was someone famous (or God) and wasn't mentally impaired?
I mean believed it, not just said it for power. Jesus had nothing to gain by calling himself God (they tried to kill him), so what other conclusion can we draw?

There is no evidence of later embellishment, and little time to develop a legend

And there is evidence of embellishment, both in the books that were rejected by the church because they presented more contradictions and in the canonic gospels.

The church rejected the books it did because they lacked evidence of apostolic authorship, not because they contradicted the four gospels. The only contradictions I think you could be referring to were written by gnostics who, though contrary, agreed to all the aspects of Jesus life including his miracles. Their interpretations were different, which is why many of Paul's letters (and John's Gospel) were written--to the correct them. Read Colossians 1:15.

Science would never come close to the concept of anger the emotion because emotions are only knowable by the inside information we have as humans. In order to find Joe's reason for hitting Dave, we must employ a rationalist perspective.

A punch in the face isn't an extraordinary claim, resurrection is. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

According to... your naturalistic perspective. A supernatural event is only extraordinary to an empiricist who had already decided such events were impossible. Stay on the middle road here. Try to look at God from both epistemological views.

God is not a material being. He is all person. Science cannot touch Him. Just as reason alone could understand Joe’s personal intent in punching Dave, reason alone can understand the all-personal God.

Even reason alone won't help your case.

That's your right to say, and that's the difference between believers and nonbelievers. Believers view God through the eyes of the Holy Spirit. Nonbelievers view God through human eyes, pretending God's motivations are like some giant human's. We can only understand God when we accept the Holy Spirit, and he only enters in response to a step of faith. Either you're willing or you're not.

Even theologians don't prove god, they just presume that he exists.

If by 'prove' you mean 'argue for with logic and evidence', apologists do that all the time. If by prove you mean test for and receive results, you have left the rationalists camp. There is no such thing as 'proving' to the rationalists because every person is isolated in their own mind--we can't share thoughts or create a collective thought experiment.

But you lack the right to impose a naturalistic view on the question of God (at least God in the traditionally accepted sense).

Your presumed god acts in the natural world, therefore any specific claim of an act with natural consequencies (i.e. a resurrection) falls within the scope of a naturalistic analysis.

That's why we have eyewitness accounts of the event, as you'd expect. We cannot, however, test history using the scientific method. Like any historical event, we are reliant on the witnesses' testimony and our own reason.

Jesus is the only man to claim he was God and be believed by thousands

Not true: read here.

Did any of these humans calling themselves gods cause a change in their followers? People served them as subjects because they had to, they didn't respond out of selfless love. And in every case, these were rulers were stood to gain power or possessions. Jesus stood to gain nothing--he refused when the people tried to make him king (John 6:15).