Archaeology is a Christian's best friend. Over and over again, challenges are launched against the Bible that are later met with archaeological evidence. The Hittites, for example, are mentioned several times in the Bible, but before 1906, the Bible was the only historical source by which one could learn about the Hittites. Atheists argued that there's no way an entire culture could just drop out of reality, so absence of evidence for the Hittites became positive evidence that the Bible is false.
But in 1906, all that changed. The capital city of the Hittites was discovered, and we now know large amounts about who the Hittites were. The Bible was vindicated by archaeology. This isn't an isolated case, either. The Bible has many times been met with claims that either there is no evidence for it, or even charges of error. But time and time again, these claims have been put to bed by new discoveries. Historically speaking, the Bible is unassailable.
But despite repeatedly meeting every challenge thrown at it, atheists still claim there is "no evidence" that the Bible is true. I'm willing to lay this down as a rule: if you are so unreasonably skeptical that you are willing to blatantly ignore centuries of archaeology, history and science in order to claim there is no evidence, you lose the right to call yourself a rational thinker. Atheism isn't about the evidence at all. It's about a desire to avoid accountability to a God who will judge your sin. As a thinking individual, I'm just not willing to take such a leap of faith.