Evidence typically conforms to Bayes theorem. And as such you really can have bad evidence and good evidence and you can rather clearly measure the quality of the evidence. Typically based on the surprise factor. If the thing in question should be true vs. false. How surprising is this particular bit information.
If Christianity is true, how surprising should it be that it supposes a demigod whose blood sacrifice propitiates the alpha-male human-anger emotions of the creator of the entire universe for wrongdoings of human ancestors in a middle-eastern creation story, rather than the particular humans in question. Is this what we should expect as the actual way the real universe actually works? No. It's certifiably insane.
If Christianity is false, how surprising should it be? Well, it isn't. It was first practiced in areas with newly found pagan influences where demigods and their wacky adventures were commonplace, where blood sacrifice to appease an angry God were common. That the sins of the father were given to their children, that one could atone for the sins of another allowing the guilty to go free, that a human sacrifice was the best kind of sacrifice, that the creator of the universe wanted things killed for him. And such a system that allows for god donning a baby suit and sacrificing himself to himself to appease himself, wouldn't shock the mind of anybody and would be expected of the creator of the universe. If somebody around that time invented a religion, it would be a lot like Christianity.
The story of Christianity, the claims that it makes, are remarkably good evidence that it's false.