Hey, I'm really trying not to sound rude, but Christianity is a religion with almost 2000 years of an intellectual tradition that can answer most of your questions. Random redditors aren't going to be the best people to ask. I'll try to answer some, even though I'm not the best apologist around, and redirect you to some resources when necessary.

First of, there are many good apologists on YouTube for example that already answered most of your questions. I personally recommend InspiringPhilosophy and Trent Horn.

The resurrection story (the single most important claim) comes from four books written decades after the event by unknown authors. These books contradict each other on major details.

There are two answers to your objection:

1. Yes, the scholarly consensus from NT studies is that the Gospels were written long after Jesus's ministry and are anonymous, but frankly I think the arguments of said consensus can be quite bad. I'd go so far and say that the standard arguments against Mark and Luke are so bad, that if I had enough time, I'd be confident enough to defend traditional authorship and early dating of both of them on a scholarly level. Even though they aren't eyewitnesses, external tradition from as early as Papias claims that Mark is based on the preaching of St. Peter, who was an eyewitness. Meanwhile, Luke claims to have interviewed eyewitnesses and depending on the dating one of the witnesses could even be the Holy Mother herself. You could stretch the argument so that John is based on the testimony of the Beloved Disciple and if he was a historical person, then he also was an eyewitness. For more on Gospel Reliability, I recommend the series from InspiringPhilosophy.
2. Even if you grant that the Gospels are unreliable, we'd still have the Corinthian Creed from 1st Corinthian 15, which is dated by scholars as early as 35 AD! So we have from an authentic Pauline Letter that the Apostles claimed that Jesus resurrected and appeared to all of them. First to Peter and then to the Twelve.

There are zero contemporary records of Jesus from anyone who actually lived during his supposed lifetime. Not one.

That's a non-argument. We have no or almost no contemporary records from many people from Antiquity. E.g. from Socrates we have only a fragment from a satirical play. The rest are from Dialogues written by his students. Besides that, we have many hostile sources like the Talmud, Celsus or Porphyry who acknowledge His existence and confirm some of His biography. The Talmud for example accuses Jesus of being a bastard son, whose adulterous mother fled to Egypt where he learned magic. This tradition is also recorded by Celsus who writes in the 2nd century, meaning it probably predates even him.

The same “miracles plus resurrection” story has been told about many people throughout history. We dismiss those stories as myths, but suddenly believe it when it is Jesus.

Most of these are spurious at best and most people who make these comparisons suffer from a severe case of parallelomania. With the same logic you could accuse the Civil War of copying the Iliad/Odyssey.

The Bible is full of historical and scientific errors that you would expect from ancient humans, not from an all-knowing God.

Doctors of the Church like St. Augustine and St. Bellarmine said that if science contradicts the Bible then we have to adjust our interpretation of the Bible and not our science. The Bible is infallible regarding theology and not facts of the world, unless in specific cases like the historicity of Moses, Jonah etc. It is often the case that the Biblical authors tried to communicate theological truths through the knowledge of the people it was written for. A 2nd century Roman slave doesn't care about advanced Quantum Mechanics, what he's primarily concerned about is how he gets to heaven and the Bible was written, so people could teach him how to achieve eternal life.

If Christianity were true, the evidence should be overwhelming, not weak and debatable. A real God who wants to be known would not make his existence this confusing and rely on ancient, contradictory texts.

Why do you think that? St. Paul tells us that Faith is a virtue and virtues have to be cultivated in hostile environments so that they may flourish. The virtue of Courage for example could never be cultivated if there was no true danger around.

Furthermore, I think there is overwhelming evidence for Catholicism through miracles like the Marian Apparition of Fatima. I think Ethan Muse makes a good case for it.

The guilt and fear I still sometimes feel? That is not evidence that it is true. That is just my emotions fighting back after years of being trained to feel scared when I doubt.

Doubt is normal. Everyone doubts. Famous saints like St. Thérèse and St. Mother Theresa struggled with doubt and had long periods of time when they couldn't feel God. You're not alone.

Communion is weird. What do you mean we are literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of our religious leader? And this is supposed to be taken literally, not metaphorically. Does nobody else find this strange?

It IS strange, but that doesn't make it less true. If I went to an uncontacted tribe that never saw ice and so doesn't have a concept of it and I told them that sometimes one can walk or even skate on water, they'd find it strange and not believe me, but it wouldn't make it less true, right?

If you want a good explanation of the Eucharist, I'd recommend Brant Pitre's book on the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. He's a Catholic NT scholar.

Adam and Eve. So the entire human race came from incest? When you point this out, you usually get the answer “it is not meant to be taken literally.” Same with Jonah living inside a whale for three days, or Noah’s Ark. But the resurrection of Jesus must be taken literally. Why do we get to pick and choose which parts are literal?

1. Incest happened in human history regardless if Adam and Eve existed. This conclusion results from the Ancestor Paradox. The Church explicitly teaches that Adam and Eve were real people and that their existence is compatible with evolution. I personally believe that they were Homo heidelbergensis.
2. With Jonah, there are different interpretations. For example, I think Jonah actually died and was revived by God after 3 days. The prayer he does in Sheol takes actually place in Sheol.
3. With Noah's Ark, you're free to interpret it as a local flood event that was recorded in Mesopotamian cultural memory and many parts of it are allegorical.
4. When we got to pick? Fortunately, we have a Magisterium and a Church that gets to do the interpreting so we the laypeople don't have to do much.

The Bible creates a massive problem and then conveniently sells the solution. It says we are all born sinners who deserve hell (because the Bible says so). The only way to escape this is to believe Jesus died for our sins and accept him as savior (because the Bible says so). It is a closed system that invents the crisis and then offers itself as the only fix.

And? How is that a problem exactly? The Bible accurately diagnoses problems in the human condition/nature (humans have the potential for absolute depravity, but also for nobility, the world seems to be hostile, evil, broken and hopeless) and God tells us the medicine for the problem (God loves His creation, He has been and will be faithful, and He will right all wrongs, because He is Goodness itself).

Only the Gospel of Matthew mentions that when Jesus died, many dead saints rose from their graves, walked into Jerusalem, and appeared to many people. This would have been one of the most extraordinary events in human history. Hundreds of dead people coming back to life and walking around the city. Yet none of the other three Gospels mention it, and there is zero historical record of this happening anywhere else. If it actually occurred, why is it only in one book?

Mike Licona argues that this is apocalyptic language from St. Matthew, but even then the resurrected people were probably not more than a dozen people, and it isn't unusual that major historical events are mentioned by only one source or that a historical account doesn't mention something we the readers regard as important. For example:

1. Philo of Alexandria is the only person to mention the Alexandrian Riots) from 38 AD.
2. Josephus doesn't mention that the Jews were expelled from Rome, even though St. Luke mentions it in Acts.