I'm arguinmg wtih one of those know nothings and I say Jesus can be verified to have existed as a man in hisotry but not so Mithra or Zeus or any of the dying/rizing savior gods except Krishna and Buddha and even that evidence is weak. He says that's so stupid. They were all based upon real people.
Get into another argument I argue that the Gospels are good evidence for the existence of Jesus as a man in history. I am not trying to prove he's the son of God, but as a man in history, a flesh and blood man, not a fiction made up. So this gay says that's circualr reasoning because I'm using the bible to prove the bible.
I say well he doesn't know what circualr reasoning is because there is nothing circular about using a text as an artifact. It would be circular if I said "the Bbile says it's the word of god, so its' the word of God." Or "the Bible is the word of God, here let me quote this verse saying "this is the word of God." Of course if you know anything about my past you know that I do not argue for this. In any case he comes back and says "you are trying to use a supernatural books as a natural book so this is circular reasoning."
Aside from the fact he that can't show me why it's circular, he just got through saying that Mithra and all these supernatural mythological figures were real people. So he's using supernatrual figures as artifacts and naturalistic. So why can't I? but when he does it it's logic and reason when I do it it's circualr reasoning.