Yes. There are different types of evidence, and atheists CHOOSE not to believe the evidence for Christianity.
First, it should be noted that the New Testament has stronger manuscript support than any other work of classical literature--including Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, and Tactus. There are presently more than 5,000 copies of Greek manuscripts in existence and as many as 20,000 more translations in such languages as Latin, Coptic, and Syriac. The earliest manuscript fragments can be dated to within a hundred years after Christ's death and resurrection. The accumulation of fragments is now so large that one can piece together most of the New Testament from fragments that are dated within two centuries of Christ's death and resurrection. This is amazing when you consider that only seven copies of Plato's Dialogues are in existence--and there is a 1,300 year gap which separates the earliest copy (eighth century AD) from the original writing (fifth century BC). Similarly, there are only 650 copies of Homer's Iliad (the bible of the ancient Greeks) in existence--and there is a 1000 year gap which separates the earliest copy (second century AD) from the original writing (eighth century BC).
Bart Ehrman has sought to negate the value of the manuscripts by arguing that "there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament." At first blush his argument seems to have credibility. A closer examination, however, demonstrates that it has little weight. Here's why:
Suppose you wrote an essay and asked five friends to produce a handwritten copy of it. Imagine further that each of them asked five friends to do the same. The five would make mistakes, and those who copy the copies would make additional errors. By the "fifth generation" you would have 4000 flawed manuscripts. Sounds pretty grim, right? But think with me for a moment. Your five friends made mistakes, but they didn't all make the same mistakes. If you compared the copies, you would find that one group contained the same mistakes, while the other four did not. This, of course, would make it easy to tell the copies from the original. Not only so, but most of the mistakes would be obvious--such as misspelled words or a missed conjunction. Even if you lost the original, as long as you had access to the copies, it would be a rather simple matter to reproduce the original piece.
That's essentiallly the situation with the New Testament. We've got thousands of copies, which have been classified by scholars into groups, and thus we can determine with great precision what the originals actually said. While it can be argued that there are differences in stlye and spelling among the various manuscripts, it cannot be asserted that there are significant differences in substance.
What is true of the New Testament is true of the Old Testament as well. The Dead Sea Scrolls (100 BC) discovered in the late 1940's predate what was then the earliest extant text--Masoretic (AD 900)--by some 1000 years. In other words, there is a full millennium during which the text might have been signifcantly altered. When the Masoretic text is compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls, differences in style and spellling were discovered but no significant difference in substance.
Furthermore, scripture is confirmed through the eyewitness testimony of its authors. Moses, for example, partici[ated in and was an eyewitness to the remarkable events of the Egyptian captivity, the Exodus, the 40 years in the desert, and Israel's final encampment before entering the Promised Land, all of which are accurately chronicled in the Old Testament. The New Testament has even stronger eyewitness authenticity. For example, Luke says that he gathered eyewitness testimony and "carefully investigated everything" (Luke 1:1-3). John writes, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of Life" (1John 1:1). Likewise, Peter reminded his readers that the disciples "did not follow cleverly invented stories" but "were eyewitnesses of [Jesus'] majesty" (2 Peter 1:16). These were eyewitnesses, mind you, who were willing to testify to the point of shedding their own blood.
Then there are secular historians--including Josephus (BEFORE 100 AD), the Roman Tacitus (around AD 110), the Roman Suetonius (AD 110), and the Roman governor Pliny the Younger (AD 110)--confirm the many events, people, places, and customs chronicled in the New Testament. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Rome--all writing before AD 250--also shed significant light on the historical accuracy of the New Testament. From such sources one can piece together highlights of the life of Christ indepent of the Bible. As such, credible historians today concede that the Bible is a remarkable historical document.
Source(s):
Excerpts from "Confronting the New Village Atheists" by Hank Hanegraaff,
his website is: http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/...
Hank also answers Bible questions on a Nationally syndicated Radio program called "The Bible Answer Man"
Check his website to find a station in your area.
Recommended Reading: The Case for Christ by Lee Stroebel
Yes, atheists are wrong.