First, as to evidence:
Goboy is entirely correct that there is no uncontrovertible evidence “proving” the Resurrection, whatever it may have been, was not some sort of fraud or misinterpretation. I will note that the Gospel writers were at pains to discount the idea of Jesus the Friendly Ghost, and only casually to discount the idea that he was d-e-a-d with no life-after-death event whatsoever. The latter would of course fit our present-day worldview much better than either the risen body or ghost hypotheses, the ghost hypothesis being the more appealing to the first-century mindset.
However, he contrasts objective evidence with faith, by which I derive the impression he means uncritical acceptance of teachings. I’d note that there is such a thing as valid subjective evidence, which extends only as far as the person experiencing it and those who respect his or her authority. For example, the majority of those reading this are either married or have a significant other whom they trust. There is absolutely no objective proof that at this precise minute, as you read this, your spouse/SO is not draining your 401(k) and retirement, maxing out your credit cards, signing massive bank loans in your name, selling your nonliquid property, and planning to take his/her illgotten proceeds and run off to an overseas resort in a country with no extradition with the US. Yet few if any of my readers have jumped up to stop this theft. Why? Because you know this other person and place trust in his/her good faith towards you, that he or she would not do such a thing.
For millions of Christians down through the centuries, such an inner knowledge and trust has been extended towards an entity they have experienced and know as the one God in three persons. This is “faith” by their definition… an inner certainty, not founded on external evidence or logic but not an uncritical acceptance of the words of any Book. For them the validity of the Bible, such as it is, derives from the experience. Not “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so,” but “Jesus loves me, He told me so, hence the Bible is not just snow.” 
Certainly their claims regarding such experiences are not “proof” to anyone but them and those who trust their authority. But it stands above “uncritical acceptance” as a level of personally experienced evidence.
And Axel’s point is very well taken. I would say that reasoned critical examination of every aspect of one’s faith is, far from being sinful, the proper behavior of an intelligent believer. And instilling in young people the idea that this is so on authority and not subject to doubt or debate is far from inducing any decent faith in them. “Perfect love casts out fear” as St. John was wont to say.
Examination of the evidence surrounding the Falun Gong and the various cultic claims does not point to the same sort of development. Where their “silly claims” are not misinterpretations of reasonable data (chakras as their term for the activity of nerve plexuses, for example), they do not lead to that same inner confidence in reasonable people. And I think you would have to admit that at least some of the believers in the God of Abraham in one of the three major interpretations of Him are fairly reasonable people outside this strange hangup about God. I do not have a problem exploring what other belief systems have to say; there’s an element of truth in almost every theory. I tend to confine my explorations to those with some degree of evidence surrounding their claims. The guys who believe that the Gods live on top of Mount Everest, for example, need to clarify why Hillary and Norkay didn’t run into them before they get any critical examination from me. But what Guatama Sakyamuni the Enlightened had to say, I take with some respect, if not credence, and I learn more about what a non-Western search for ultimate reality might be from him and his followers. I have immense respect for the work of Lao-Tse, and believe about 2/3 of the Tao as a sort of Chinese Platonism anticipating the conceptualizations of Christian metaphysicists and avoiding the natural/supernatural dichotomy that has messed up their thinking.
Gaudere, the growth of discount retail chains was merely a sidelight on the trends I see occurring. The tendency of fundamentalists to define a narrow orthodoxy with a stringent moral code based on their interpretation of the Bible, and (some of them) to expect this as the normative behavior of this supposedly Christian nation, is the farthest thing from the religion I practice. Contrary to the idea that salvation is God’s free gift, which Jesus and even Paul taught, they structure it around a formal verbal acceptance and then the living of this faith according to that stringent code (“the Narrow Road” of LBMB fame) – “You have to earn your salvation; you can’t get it on special at Wal-Mart.” Well, the farthest thing from that; I think you can. And I know just what I’m saying here. God loves you, just as you are, no matter what.
Now, to extend that: First, let me reflect once again that in the first century all reasonable thinkers were convinced that the Messianic prophecies of the Jews were either complete booshwa or to be interpreted symbolically, as the task of the Chosen People to be examples to the world of life under God’s Law, while a few True Believers were convinced that the Messiah would come in power, restore the true worship to the Temple and throw out those Romans and Herodians and rule Israel in justice and glory. Nobody expected a wandering carpenter’s son to teach love, mercy and forgiveness, and then be put to death – and they surely didn’t expect him to come back to life as the promised Messiah. Yet that’s the story as we have it, accept it or not.
Today, the LB group expects the Great Tribulation, the Rapture, and JC to come back on the clouds to separate the sheep (them, who have followed the Narrow Road) from the goats (all us unbelievers, skeptics, and “people who water down Christianity” by, e.g., saying there’s salvation for gays without them repenting of their sinful sexuality. (You know where I stand on that issue, having had to wade through 50 pages of explication of what Christianity really says IMHO a couple of months ago.) And of course everybody else thinks that the Second Coming is looney-bin stuff or else buys into a Spongian interpretation of a post-death encounter with God out of this time and space.
Now, take Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988). In 1940 he was writing about such strange stuff as cities decaying at the center and sprawling towards each other along major corridors, space travel being ho-hum to the general populace, water beds, remote manipulators he named Waldos, solar power, the decline of rational thought as technology grew and became more nearly “indistinguishable from magic” (a Clarke phrase, but a characteristically Heinlein concept) except to the practitioners, and a change in sexual mores to allow much more freedom than in the 1950s – unwed mothers and birth control being common and spoken of publicly, homosexuals admitting their sexuality, all that unthinkable stuff.
In short, he extrapolated the world of today, with the particular exception of personal computing, from trends he saw starting in the 1930s and 1940s.
He also extrapolated the growth of fundamentalist religion, a small minority view in his time, and of cults. And he suggested that demagogues might utilize this uncritical faith, coupled with the natural conservatism of big business, as a means to political power. And if that doesn’t sound familiar, you haven’t been reading the papers.
Now mix in Stranger in a Strange Land, with the lead character not raised as a Martian but instead divorced from society by another traditional means of making one feel oneself an outsider. Put him on a collision course with the aforementioned demagogue. Mix in some dirty politics.
And set it when Heinlein did, twelve years from now.
As somebody said as a .sig here, “I may be wrong, but I’m certain.”
