Dawkins Defeats O'Reilly?

OneGoodMove has a quotable comment if I have ever read one:

Apparently Bill's only standard for truth is that he believes it.

And thus describes the contest between Dawkins and O'Reilly this evening. The only foundational evidence that the intellectually-incongruent bastion of false knowledge had (O'Reilly, in case it wasn't clear enough...) was that he believes, so it is true.

Because he believes.

So it is true.

And that was the basis of his side of the debate. Although I feel that Richard got the best of thoughts in the battle of words, it was not a clear cut win. How could it be, from an outsiders perspective. I would have liked to see/hear their off camera discussion after the interview - I can only assume that Dawkins either placated Bill by saying "thanks for your time" or destroyed him with cogent vengeance and tacit thoughts, ones which he feared too offensive for television. Or he just got up and walked away. Anyway...where was I going here...oh yeah: Richard got the better of thoughts across, but due to Bill's simplistic and intellectually void inputs, there was nothing for Richard to go with. Not unlike discussing a molecule's actual weight with a newborn child.

At least the newborn would have an excuse for being stupid. Bill, sadly, didn't.

I think it is true, therefore it is.

I'm rubber your glue.

These are, while observationally false, quite the range of arguments that creationists and religious apologists lean towards.

PS - the link above will take you to the 2 min clip of the interview.