Except there is "evidence". There is no proof, but there is evidence. To be fair, there is never proof of historical figured, especially ones 2000 years old. All you have is evidence that points towards certain conclusions.There is far more evidence of Christ than atheists tend to state, and IMO they would be more persuasive if they were honest and admitted that. The fact that Christianity grew so large and spread so effectively even though it gained its followers only pain is evidence (again, not proof but evidence). That sort of thing is difficult to explain outside of people being genuinely convinced (many religions spread because they offer their believers things -- but early Christianity offered only suffering).Just believing the whole thing was made up later is hard to believe as well. Certainly it wasn't made up in the third century when it became the official religion of the nation that originally despised and hated it -- Rome. Scholarly dating puts the gospels written within the same lifetime as Jesus contemparies -- so how did the follows of Jesus spread so effectively when all that would be needed to put them away would be A) Testimony by any of the thousands of eye witnesses stated in the gospels B) the corpse of Jesus (which Rome would have easily been able to produce since they heavily guarded it). And again, why are people being persuaded to join up with a religion that told them not to fight up against Rome (which is what they wanted and why Jews were so disappointed with Jesus).I'm not saying there is proof. But there is enough evidence and reasons to believe that it's unfair to call Christians delusional and laugh us away.