Russell's Teapot

[Jack]

So it's ultimately meaningless.

No, it's an analogy.

drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect; "the operation of a computer presents and interesting analogy to the working of the brain"; "the models show by analogy how matter is built up"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[Kamehameha34]

No, it's an analogy.

..Comparing theism to believing in Russell's claim - for what purpose?

[Jack]

Russell's teapot is the analogy. It's a story that draws a conclusion that can then be extrapolated to other situations.
In this case, Russell contends that he knows there's a teapot in space that cannot be detected, yet exists. Logic would expect him to provide a valid reason to believe such a thing exists. It is illogical to expect skeptics to scour the heavens in an attempt to disprove such a silly contention.

We can then say that's analogous to the belief that gods exist.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Isherwood Russell's teapot is the analogy. It's a story that draws a conclusion that can then be extrapolated to other situations. In this case, Russell contends that he knows there's a teapot in space that cannot be detected, yet exists. Logic would expect him to provide a valid reason to believe such a thing exists. It is illogical to expect skeptics to scour the heavens in an attempt to disprove such a silly contention. We can then say that's analogous to the belief that gods exist.

But I find that to be the fatal flaw in the analogy.
Though it would be illogical to expect skeptics to do so, it would be in principle possible.
That is not the case for God.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So it's ultimately meaningless.

.......?! What are you talking about?? Didn't you see what the analogy was trying to explain?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Outlandish meaning ridiculous. That's the whole point of the comparison. To make the god claim look "ridiculous."

No, it can look quite ridiculous without being compared to a celestial teapot. That isn't the point of the 'comparison'. It is to demonstrate how the burden of proof should not be on the skeptic. God, I don't want to type it all again.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Ad ignoratium. No proof for the positive =/= proof for the negative.

There isn't any proof for the damn negative in this analogy! This isn't designed to directly support the claim that gods don't exist!

[pikatore]

Quote by: LetThereBe But I find that to be the fatal flaw in the analogy. Though it would be illogical to expect skeptics to do so, it would be in principle possible. That is not the case for God.

No, it is exactly the same for God. God is a concept WE devised, and his existence is therefore a claim WE make. This analogy is word for word, 100% relevant.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Again, from my experience most theists don't care if they're being logical or not about their beliefs. It's pretty much only on this site that I've really met theists who think they are being logical when believing in the by defenition illogical God.

[Kamehameha34]

We can then say that's analogous to the belief that gods exist.

Correct. What I have a problem with is people using the analogy as evidence for an absence of a god.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: pikatore No, it is exactly the same for God. God is a concept WE devised, and his existence is therefore a claim WE make. This analogy is word for word, 100% relevant.

Only in the context of burden of proof.

Some try to apply it to probability, where it has no place.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Correct. What I have a problem with is people using the analogy as evidence for an absence of a god.

ITS. AN. ANALOGY. you can't use an analogy as evidence.

the analogy is designed to draw attention to the belief in the claim that there is a teapot, because it is identical in nature to the belief that a god exists, no matter how much more complicated the reason for that belief may be.

[pikatore]

Quote by: LetThereBe Only in the context of burden of proof. Some try to apply it to probability, where it has no place.

I agree. This simply addresses the burden of proof. It isn't examining the probability of the existence of a god. It only addresses the fact that theists should be held accountable for proving thier god exists if they want to have a proper case.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: pikatore I agree. This simply addresses the burden of proof. It isn't examining the probability of the existence of a god. It only addresses the fact that theists should be held accountable for proving thier god exists if they want to have a proper case.

I concur.

That is one of the things that I disliked in Dawkins The God Delusion.

He tried to use this analogy as a parallel of theistic likelihood.

[Gods_Mercenary]

No argument there, but, most theists don't care about a proper case.

[Jack]

But I find that to be the fatal flaw in the analogy.

I agree. That's why it's best to limit the teapot analogy to the burden of proof. Otherwise the weakness of the analogy allows for too many loopholes.

[Kamehameha34]

All the analogy establishes is that claims don't default to true.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You've yet to prove that your comparison is any more than appeal to ridicule. Basically, you're taking russel's teapot, saying "isn't this ridiculous?" and then connecting it with the god claim, through only the fact that both claims are unfalsifiable.

The "believers" of the teapot arn't the ones saying "isn't this ridiculous." They arn't making any claim whatsoever. That part of the argument is meant to be supplied by the viewer, who later understands the parallels. Thats what an analogy is. You, kam, are the one who just said its ridiculous, but you can't blame the creators of the analogy.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 the analogy doesn't suggest anything to be TRUE, or UNTRUE. So it's ultimately meaningless.

i vonder... this revinds me of sumpfink....

[RickSp]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary It is odd to convert someone to your own personal beliefs, but then, if it makes you happy, maybe you want to make pthers happy. Wars, however, are rarely fought for completely religous reasons. Even the crusades stemmed out of a purely political concern of the Turk's theft of Byzantine lands.

Conversion odd? Please. Christianity is based on evangelism. "Depending on how the question is asked, some 25-45 percent of the population report that they see themselves as either Born-Again Christians, or, in the broadest sense of the word, Christian "Evangelicals." Evangelism is the core of Christianity.

And yes, most wars are not fought for solely religous reasons, nevertheless religion plays a significant role in many conflicts. Folks are still way too willing to kill each other over who has the strongest imaginary friend.

[Kamehameha34]

The "believers" of the teapot arn't the ones saying "isn't this ridiculous." They arn't making any claim whatsoever. That part of the argument is meant to be supplied by the viewer, who later understands the parallels. Thats what an analogy is. You, kam, are the one who just said its ridiculous, but you can't blame the creators of the analogy.

Let's analyze what I said, shall we?

Basically, you're taking russel's teapot,

- Addressed to Pikatore. Now, which of the following is the antecedent if it is addressed to pikatore?

a) Pikatore
b) Believers in the tea pot

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: RickSp Conversion odd? Please. Christianity is based on evangelism. "Depending on how the question is asked, some 25-45 percent of the population report that they see themselves as either Born-Again Christians, or, in the broadest sense of the word, Christian "Evangelicals." Evangelism is the core of Christianity. And yes, most wars are not fought for solely religous reasons, nevertheless religion plays a significant role in many conflicts. Folks are still way too willing to kill each other over who has the strongest imaginary friend.

So Christianity's odd, where did I suggest otherwise? Folks are way too willing to kill each other period.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 - Addressed to Pikatore. Now, which of the following is the antecedent if it is addressed to pikatore? a) Pikatore b) Believers in the tea pot

I didn't create the analogy, and I didn't connect it to anything. All ive done this thread is put it forward and claim that the nature of it's design is reasonable.