Christianity is not based upon evidence...but it is backed by evidence
No it isn't, and no amount of claiming so will change the fact. If christianity was backed by evidence then there would be no need for faith.
Obviously anyone could “claim” to be God
Which is exactly what has happened at numerous points throughout history. Some just had a little more staying power than others,
The difference with Jesus is that His life completely backed those claims.
There are no contemporary writings detailing the life of jesus, all of the gospels were written, at a bare minimum, over two decades after his supposed death and never by anyone who had first hand knowledge of jesus.
Check out the history, check out the claims it’s an absolutely phenomenal study.
I have, they don't hold up under any serious examination, and many of the claims (i.e. Josephus) can be shown to have been to be outright forgeries, added many years after the original writings.
(B)uddha didn't rise from the dead, nor did Confucius or Zoroaster.
No one claims they did, but that's beside the point. There is no extrabiblical evidence that jesus rose from the dead and the gospels themselves are in no way consitent with each other about the details. You have no objective, non-biased sources that attest to the ressurection of jesus, and the ones that you have from the bible are fanciful, inconsistent, and contrary to contempory writings in their details (I find it hard to believe that earthquakes and the dead arising and walking around at midday would not have been recorded by the numerous scribes and roman functionaries who's job was to record the happenings in and around the province.)
Muhammad didn't fulfill detailed prophecy
It doesn't matter whether he did or not, or whether jesus did or not. When writting of events after the fact it is easy, and even tempting, to twist a fact here, fudge a detail there to make your story conform to so called "prophecy".
Alexander the Great didn't raise the dead or heal the sick.
Nor did he claim to IIRC, Alexander did claim devine parentage, as did many great leaders of that time. But in the end it doesn't matter, because you still have nothing outside of the bible that jesus preformed many of these "miraculous" feats.
And though there is far less reliable information written about these “religious” leaders
I daresay that there does exist a body knowledge about the life and martial accomplisments of Mohammed that is far more complete then there does about jesus. There are hundreds, if not thousands of contemporary texts that record and confirm the existance of Mohammed, and the claims of texts are given weight by the fact that they were not all written to glorify Mohammed but also to condemn him.
There is in fact a far larger and diverse body of contempory work attesting to the life of Siddartha Gautama then there is of jesus, who there exists almost no contempory evidence.
they are believed in and followed by millions.
In the cases of Buddah, Confucious, and Muhammed you are correct. But in the case of Zoroaster there is but a quickly dwindling following confined mostly to the boundries of the heart of the old persian empire. And i find it highly doubtful that you could find a thousand people who worship Alexander the Great, and the whole lot of them are likely to actually be worshipping Colin Farrell as opposed to Alexander himself.