Why don't Christians understand why atheists reject the notion that Jesus really existed?

They always ask stupid questions like why we believe that real historical figures like Muhammad or Moses or Buddha existed when we deny the historicity of Jesus. The problem is in the historical record. The only record of Jesus is in the Bible, which we already know is false.

There is no mention of him outside of the fantastic fables of a retarded people. There are no court documents from the trial. There are no passing references to the massive popular movement he supposedly led. He left no writings. There's nothing outside of sketchy second hand accounts in one particular book that would be best used as kindling.

On the other hand we have legitimate (ie non-Biblical) proof that the other figures they bring up were real people. We have evidence of Socrates through Plato's writings. We have evidence of Muhammad from hadith and the Islamic historians. We have evidence of Buddha from Indian tradition and Buddhist lore. While all of these accounts are also second hand they are inherently more reliable and can be trusted to establish the existence of these people if not every single detail of their lives.

Read more: Why don't Christians understand why atheists reject the notion that Jesus really existed?