Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[SteveII]

What evidence would you expect to see from events that happened in the first century? Writings. The more the better. The more names we know the better. The more immediate effects these writings had the better. The more people that believed the events even before the writings the better (for example, Paul addresses the already existing churches throughout the Roman empire in the very first surviving writings).
So yes. Quantity of the only evidence we should expect to survive (writings) is an important factor.

The more unbiased outside corroboration, the better, particularly in a region and time noted for how much was preserved by historians of the time. All the testimony seems to come from believers, which is really odd, considering all the things they're claiming happened; if they really happened. If they didn't really happen, it's not odd at all: 'Chinese whispers' and bias easily account for uncorroborated fantastic stories recorded decades after the supposed events.

There's plenty of evidence that Christians existed in the Middle East thousands of years ago and evidence of what they believed. But what you want is evidence that what they believed about supernatural events was true, right? You'd want outside corroboration from people with no skin in the game for that, right? If you had Pliny the Elder complaining about the dead people wandering Jerusalem and the sky darkening for three hours along with rock-splitting earthquakes, that would be something. That was quite a day to only be noticed by the faithful, and outside coverage of it would be evidence that something remarkable, at least, was happening. But hardcore atheists are spared trying to explain it because there's no good reason to think it happened in the first place. It's embellishment and symbology; believing it actually happened despite no outsider recording it requires more mental gymnastics than dismissing it as such.

It would be nice to have more evidence. However, there is no way to know what "third-party" evidence there was and was lost to history (what percentage of documents do you think survived the sacking of Jerusalem or even the normal hazards of the first couple of centuries?). There is no rebuttal evidence. It becomes a matter of opinion as to the weight you put on the evidence we have and what is or is not compelling. There is no proof. Most Christians believe because of a variety of reasons and not just because the first century Christian docs are unassailable proof. 

However, germane to the subject, Christians do have way more to consider in their cumulative case for their beliefs than do other religions.

---

Wait.  I'd like to add to expand on my previous post as I am thinking back on Steve's threads.

First, he tried to argue that extraordinary claims shouldn't need extraordinary evidence to be reasonably accepted.  When that approach failed, he then tried arguing that the crappy non-evidence for his extraordinary claims is actually good, reliable evidence.  After that one sank, now he's here saying that at least his religion has more crappy non-evidence than everybody else, as though bad evidence in high enough quantities somehow magically transforms itself into good evidence.  Awesome.

You confuse my motives and goals. I met both my goals to 1) explore all of your objections and to make sure I understand your arguments and 2) is to make sure I have satisfactory answers to the more intelligent responses and at least feel that my point was understood by some. Differences of opinion will always occur. Convincing any of you of anything has never been my goal. From my point of view, all of my threads have been successful. Thinking there is a loser and a winner just shows that you do not understand rational discourse nor its goals.