On the 23rd of April, 2007, Bill O’Reilly, on his show, The O’Reilly Factor, Interviewed

Richard Dawkins, and within just four minutes he committed over 7 logical fallacies and

made the infamous assertion that he knows that his god exists because ‘it’s true

for him’.

“Well, it’s true for me!”

Now, while I’m late to this party, I always knew that one day I’d have to comment on

it, because within it, O’Reilly was so pathetic that he made even the most exaggerated comedic

representations of his creed seem mild – such as this hilarious one: “Several million

years for a monkey to turn into a man?

Oh wait, that's right, monkeys don't live several million years!”

Haha…

Without further ado, this, is It’s True For Me – Debunked.

“In the personal story segment tonight, do you believe in God?

Increasingly fewer Americans do.”

“According to a Zuckerman study, in Sweden as many as 85% of the population are nonbelievers,

Japan 65%, France 54%, and in Britain 44% do not believe in God – in Great Brittan!”

“Wow.”

“With us now is a man who understands that position, Richard Dawkins, the author of the

mega-selling book, The God Delusion.”

You lucky you git, Billy, I got to shake his hand earlier this month at the Hammersmith

Theatre, but you got to interview him!

“I think it takes more faith to be like you, an atheist, than like me, a believer,

and it’s because of nature.”

Sigh… and so here’s where it begins – with literally his first sentence to Dawkins – this

is either an Equivocation Fallacy, or it’s utterly disingenuous.

He’s either equivocating a colloquial definition of the word ‘faith’ (that being one that’s

a synonym of ‘trust’) with the religious definition of ‘faith’ (which is belief

without sufficient evidence, and often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary);

or, he’s implicitly asserting that atheists have faith that his god does not exist in

the same way that he has faith that his god does exist, which is patently absurd, and

simply not true…

“You know, I just don’t think we could have lucked out to have the tides come in,

the tides go out, the sun go up, the sun go down.

Don’t think it could have happened.”

And O’Reilly’s second sentence to Dawkins is a perfect Argument from Personal Incredulity.

Reworded, he’s asserting that because he doesn’t personally understand tidal theory

and heliocentrism (the tides go in, the tides go out, never a miscommunication.

You, can’t explain that!), both of these well-established scientific theories must

be wrong… which is just… pathetic!

Or, as Dawkins puts it: “We have a very full understanding of why the tides go in

and the tides go out, about why the continents drift about, of why life is there, science

is ever more piling on the evidence, piling on the understanding.”

“But it had to get there, I understand that, you know, the, uh, physiology of it, if you

will, but it had to come from somewhere.

And that is the leap of faith that you guys make.

That it just happened.”

“That is just happened.”

And O’Reilly’s third sentence to Dawkins is a damn Strawman Fallacy.

He’s deliberately misrepresenting atheism in order to make it easier to attack.

The truth of the matter is that because atheism only pertains to one position in relation

to one question, atheists do not necessarily share anything else in common – and this

includes their thoughts regarding the origin of the universe.

And as for the atheists that go under the banners of New Atheism, secularism, and humanism,

they too don’t believe that ‘it just happened’.

While they acknowledge the process of accretion for the formation of the planet, and the process

of natural selection for the diversity of life, when it comes to the question of where

exactly everything came from, their answer is ‘we don’t know’, because, we don’t

know, and unlike the religious, we’re not going to pretend that we do!

“A leap of faith?

You don’t actually need a leap of faith, you’re the one who needs a leap of faith,

because you are actually, the onus is on you to say why you believe in something.”

Yeah, you tell him Dawkins, the Burden of Proof is on him – because he is the one

making the assertion!

“There’s an infinite number of gods you could believe in – I take it you don’t

believe in Zeus or Apollo or Thor, you believe in presumably the…”

“Jesus!

Jesus was a real guy, I could see him.

You know, I know what he did, and so, I’m not positive that Jesus is god, but I’m

throwing in with Jesus rather than throwing in with you guys, because you guys can’t

tell me how it all got here.

You guys don’t know!”

“We’re working on it.”

“Well when you get it, then maybe I’ll listen.”

… Honestly, this really is borderline comical, isn’t it?

I mean, is O’Reilly really this stupid?

By saying that his neutral position is to believe that Jesus is god until someone can

prove that Jesus is not god, he’s both attempted to Shift the Burden of Proof and he’s made

a subtle Argument from Ignorance…

In essence, he’s asserted that ‘we don’t know X (which in this case is the origin of

the universe), therefore Y (which in this case is his very specific interpretation of

his very specific god).

It’s pathetic, and it’s the equivalent of Dawkins asserting that Zeus is god because

‘you guys can’t tell me how it all got here.

You guys don’t know!’

“Well, no, I mean, if you look at the history of science over the centuries, the amount

that’s gained in knowledge each century is stupendous.

In the beginning of the 21st century, we don’t know everything, we have to be humble, we

have to, in humility’s sake, say that there’s a lot that we still don’t know.”

“You know, being humble is a Christian virtue?”

Haha, you should give it a go some time, Billy.

“Alright, well when you guys figure it out, you come back here and tell me, because until

that time, I’m sticking with Judeo-Christian philosophy and my religion of Roman Catholicism

because it helps me as a person.”

“Oh, that’s different, if it helps you as a person that’s great, but it doesn’t

mean it’s true.”

“Well, it’s true for me.

True for me.”

And this, ladies and gentleman, brings us to the crux of this video – the assertion

that O’Reilly’s god exists because it’s true for him – “It’s true for me.”

Now, before I take on this claim, it should be said that most of those who utter these

words do so as a form of rhetoric – they’re not really asserting that their god exists

because it’s true for them, but rather, they’re simply conveying they’re convinced

that their god exists, albeit in an irritatingly vague way.

But in the case of those who mean it literally, such as O’Reilly, I honestly think that

the conversation is over, and that the appropriate response as a society is to ridicule such

people.

To put it bluntly, it simply has to become deeply embarrassing to make such a vacuous

argument… and do you know what?

In pretty much every other domain of discourse, it is!

For example, if I was to seriously tell you that the United States was responsible for

the collapse of the Roman Empire because it’s true for me, you’d laugh in my face… and

so you should!

Sometimes ridicule is the answer.

But to adequately address the underlining essence of this assertion, something is either

true or it is not, and this is the case independent of our being here to witness it.

All of science contests to this.

The idea that there are as many realities as there are beings to interpret reality is

bollocks!

It’s utterly unfounded, and it’s often the result of a disingenuous semantic black

hole.

It’s the position taken by people on their last legs – it’s a last resort.

Or as Dawkins graciously puts it: “You mean that true for you is different from true for

anybody else?

How can something be true for you?

Something’s got to be true or not.”

“No, no, I can’t prove to you that Jesus is god, and so that truth is mine, and mine

alone, but you can’t prove to me that Jesus is not, so you have to stay in your little…”

“You can’t prove that Zeus is not.”

And here we have another attempt from O’Reilly to Shift the Burden of Proof.

He’s straight-up telling Dawkins that unless he can prove that Jesus is not god, then Jesus

is god.

Honestly, this is absurd!

How on earth is this man respected as a news presenter?

“Now, we also differ in a sense that you feel that religion has been a bane (b, a,

n, e) to civilisation, and I feel atheism has.”

Oh… here we go…

“And I will point to the worst mass murders in, uh, modern times.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot – all confirmed atheists.

All people who wanted to wipe out religion.”

“Now I know that you can point to the Crusades and you can point to Al Qaeda right now, it’s

there and it’s no question, but I say, I’m throwing in with the founding fathers of the

United States which saw religion and spirituality as a moderating influence – as a good thing

if people embrace the true tenants.”

Sigh… now this is a great example of someone lighting so many fires so that their opponent

cannot possible put them all out within their time-constrained response, but to be honest,

Dawkins nevertheless did an outstanding job, and so I’m simply going to play his response

while depicting onscreen the fallacy that O’Reilly committed.

“The founding fathers of the United States were secularists above all.

Some of them were religious, some of them were not, but they were above all secularists

that believed in keeping church and state separate.”

“They Had to because of the oppression in Europe.”

“As for Hitler and Stalin and so on, of course, Hitler by the way was a roman Catholic."

"No, he never was.

He was raised in that home but he rejected it early on."

"We can dispute that.

Stalin was an atheist, no question, but Stalin did the bad things he did not because he was

atheist, I mean, Hitler and Stalin both had moustaches, but we don’t say it was their

moustaches that made them evil.”

“Haha, I don’t think they had any moral foundation, any of those guys.”

“I don’t either.”

“I will say, your book is fascinating, congratulations on your success, thanks a lot for coming on

in here.”

“Thank you very much indeed.”

So, to recap, within just 4 minutes belligerent Billy committed an Equivocation Fallacy, a

Personal Incredulity Fallacy, a Strawman Fallacy, a Shifting of the Burden of Proof Fallacy,

an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy, another Shifting of the Burden of Proof Fallacy, a

False Cause Fallacy, and he’s made one of the most pathetic arguments for the existence

of a god that I’ve ever heard…

“Well, it’s true me!”

“That's right, monkeys don't live several million years!”

Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the view, an extra special thank you to my generous

patrons, and an even extra special thank you to Jared, who very kindly donated a quality

microphone and stand to the channel, and so we’ve got him to thank for the improvement

of my audio – on behalf of us all, cheers Jared!