The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Christianity is Logically a Circular Reasoning Fallacy?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/19/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,561 times Debate No: 59182
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




My argument is that Christianity is logically a Circular Reasoning Fallacy?


Because there is no evidence for any of Jesus's teachings, nor any of the miracles of Jesus or even any evidence that Jesus was Resurrected.
Thus, nothing exists to demonstrate the Divinity of Jesus, nor the teachings and doctrines of the Bible, outside of the Bible.

Here is how it goes, I've created a Straw man Christian (an honest one at that), that is answering my Questions as only a honest Christian could.
Because to answer those questions any other way would be dishonest.

Question to a (straw man) Christian: Why are you a Christian?

Christian: Because I believe in the teachings and Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Question: How do you know of the Teachings of Jesus Christ?

Christian: The Gospels in the Bible describe the life, teachings, crucifixion and how Jesus Christ died for our sins, and was resurrected to become our Lord in Heaven.

Question: Where is the Evidence for the miracles and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Christian: It is written in The Bible.

Question: Is there any evidence for the miracles of Jesus Christ and his Resurrection outside the Bible?

Christian: There were reports of and mentioning of Jesus Christ by Historians, such as Josephus Flavius and Tacitus.

Question: Did they mention or witness the miracles or the Resurrection?

Christian: No.

Question: Since there is no evidence for the miracles or the resurrection outside of the Gospels, how come you believe so strongly that Jesus died for your sins and is your God?

Christian: Because it says so in The Bible!

Thus signifying that the Beliefs all stem from The Bible and the only evidence for those beliefs exists In The Bible.

Thus I have demonstrated that Christianity is a Circular Reasoning Fallacy.

Since The source of the Premise is also the Conclusion, there is no outside information relevant to the Conclusion.

Anybody taking the Con position will need to prove my Straw man Christian is Wrong!

As my straw man Christian is demonstrating my debate title is truthful.

Burden of Proof is mine, of course!

Good luck to anybody who takes up the challenge!


There is other evidence of Jesus's death.
Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother." And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D. But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you PandaBatman for taking part in this debate!
Hopefully I will force you to need items from your Utility Belt, as I wonder how you manage to open it with your panda paws. :-D~

As for Josephus Flavius, the Testimonium Flavius reference to Jesus Christ has been deemed a Fraudulent. It has been interpolated by later Christians trying to increase the evidence for Jesus.


For evidence of Jesus, Flavius is not a good source.
Factually there is no eye witness evidence for Jesus Christ's miracles nor resurrection outside the Bible that can Verify any of the events even happened.

For instance, the feeding of 5000 people from some bread and a few fish.
If there were 5000 people present, surely somebody was literate enough to write a thank you note or told their literate children or grand children who would likely want to write it down for posterity.
Same goes for those witnessing the Resurrection, yet we have no contemporary eye-witness accounts of any of the deeds of Jesus Christ.

A point Bart Ehrman "a highly regarded New Testament Scholar" makes clearly in this part of his debate concerning the Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The issue is not that Jesus Existed, as I am absolutely certain Jesus existed as a preacher teaching Buddhist philosophy to the Jews.

Buddhist philosophy such as turn the other cheek is foreign to Judaism so his teachings would be new and exciting to them.
As I see the Christian beginning as a fusion of Eastern and Western Cultures and thus religions.
But, there is no evidence that the Legendary Jesus of the Bible is the same story as the Living Jesus.
The most probable account for the missing tomb, is that there never was one and if we find the bones of James and do a DNA sample, very likely we will find a sibling match among the bones found in the mass graves where they dumped those executed as criminals.

So there currently exists no evidence for the Legendary Jesus of the Bible.
The statements by Josephus that were not interpolated later and those of Tacitus only demonstrate that he lived, not that he was resurrected.
Yes, I agree with all those sources: Jesus did live.
But only as an ordinary preacher with a set of teachings that blended Judaism, Buddhism and likely Confucianism. Christianity is a blend of Faiths.

So Thanks for your argument Con.
Over to you.



PandaBatman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Extend My Argument.
Hopefully my opponent will have something to rebut my argument by then??
I may have made the response time a little short.


PandaBatman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Before surgery, everybody that was hit on the head too hard or stabbed in a vital place died.
Now we can freeze people to slow the bleeding down and then conduct emergency surgery to give them a chance of living, where even 10 years ago they would be dead.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Okay Bigtown, Yes we can go for the same Debate.

Though the life expectancy is a matter of considering the things that kill people that don't kill them now.
Appendicitis, snake bite, spider bites, flu, stabbings, stoning and practically most things that people can survive these days, killed them then.
In those days, nobody survived Appendicitis and children often died from measles and TB.
The average life expectancy has risen in the last 200 years from 45 to 75 due to medicine.
So if it was only 45 over a century ago, it was likely less 2000 years ago.
Simply because the list of things that kill humans has changed.
Now the most deaths are caused by things people often didn't live long enough to worry about 200 years ago.
Posted by bigtown 7 years ago
Hey Sagey, run it again with me as the con ok? Open to that challenge? I would have to presume you know the basic story and history of man and it's troubles. You also have to accept as fact that a temple in the city called Jerusalem existed prior to 70AD, so you must accept some of the history is right, or is it all rubbish now. Truth has an amazing property in that it remains constant over time. Never changes, never lessens in impact. What proof do you have of this quote 'Especially in a time when the average life expectancy was 35 to 45 years of age' Mmm a bold claim indeed, have you seen the population census of the time of Jesus and register of births and deaths? Or is it just something else you accept as fact. Are you guilty of believing in unproven stats to trick yourself out of thinking about it, could it all be true........? By the way when you say evidence, there is a guy in Scotland convicted of murdering his wife. There was no body found, there was no forensic evidence. Why is this important? Because in Scotland juries can elect for an 'Unproven' verdict if they chose. Context is a must, if you want to understand it all and ask, could this be true? If a court of law can do it, so should you. it's your life, is it not? I can set it up if you like with me as pro with the title changed of course :-) I don't think even I could convince myself of your current Pro position.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
I was waiting for a good comeback from the Panda with the utility belt.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
True, though regardless of the Plagiarism, that was still not evidence for the reality of the Mythical Jesus Christ or the Legendary Jesus. Nothing ever found can be brought to the table as evidence, so I was pretty safe in setting up this debate there.
My opponent would require an incredible skill in debating to get their argument across as validating the Legend of Jesus.

Things written half a century after Jesus lived never counts as contemporary evidence, and that includes the Gospels.
Especially in a time when the average life expectancy was 35 to 45 years of age.
No apostles lived to contribute to Luke and John.
Likely no disciple contributed to the other two gospels either.
Posted by ArcTImes 7 years ago
The apostles didn't need to create the hoax, they don't even need to exist in the first place.

I really don't like doing this but that's just plagiarism. It is actually all over the Internet.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 7 years ago
Christian reasoning about the existence of God is always tautological.
Posted by dsjpk5 7 years ago
The willingness of the apostles to die a martyrs death is evidence of the truth of the miracle and resurrection claims. if it were a hoax, they would've known it and would probably not be willing to die for a hoax they created.
Posted by ArcTImes 7 years ago
Then the question of knowledge would be answered differently.
Posted by ArcTImes 7 years ago
What if the Christian is a really rare case of agnostic christian?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Ff

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.