Russell's Teapot

[pikatore]

I've found an analogy which more or less sums up what I've been trying to tell theists who believe that the burden of proof should not be placed on them:

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Comments?

[Zhavric]

I've never understood this dishonest shifting of the burden of proof used by theists and fundamentalist agnostics. They all understand that the burden lies on the person making the claim of an absurd thing's existence, yet choose to selectively apply this common sense.

[Gods_Mercenary]

You are free to believe in your teapot, I'm not gonna base any decisions off it, but whatever.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You are free to believe in your teapot, I'm not gonna base any decisions off it, but whatever.

Tremendous cop out.

At issue isn't anyone's freedom to believe in specific phenomenon. At issue is the validity of beliefs which are outlandish and unevidenced.

[RickSp]

What amazes me is the next step.

Theists go from asserting a belief in the unprovable teapot to worshipping the teapot, to trying to convince others to worship the teapot, which now has a complete dogma attached with demands for emotional and financial commitment along with rigid sets of rules enforced by teapot acolytes.

And the worst part is that teapot believers are always ready to engage in bloody conflict with those who insist that it isn't a teapot - it really is a toaster!

[Kamehameha34]

This inspired the new link in my signature.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 This inspired the new link in my signature.

The new link in your signature points to a site that talks about an appeal to ridicule. I think you mixed up your links.

If, on the other hand, you see Russel's Teapot as simply an appeal to ridicule, you really do need to do some reading up. Russel's Teapot does NOT demonstrate a logical fallacy.

What an appaling display, to do something like that, when you say you have me on ignore. I challenge you to tell me exactly how you think it is an appeal to ridicule. And this time, be clear, concise, and don't mince words. There's your challenge.

[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.

[harami]

Quote: "And the worst part is that teapot believers are always ready to engage in bloody conflict with those who insist that it isn't a teapot - it really is a toaster!"

It appears to me that the tendency to war and mayhem is independent of any teapot hypothesis. Too many examples in the bloody 20th century show this.

[pikatore]

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.

It refutes the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.

It demonstrates how that idea is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

It doesn't claim anything to be untrue simply because it is ridiculous. Stop claiming logical fallacies until you properly understand what they mean.

[Kamehameha34]

It doesn't claim anything to be untrue simply because it is ridiculous. Stop claiming logical fallacies until you properly understand what they mean.

I perfectly understand the fallacy. You just don't understand your example's implications.

Tell me, why is the russel's teapot claim untrue?

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I perfectly understand the fallacy. You just don't understand your example's implications. Tell me, why is the russel's teapot claim untrue?

The russel's teapot claim isn't true or untrue! It's a damn analogy! Read it and understand it, because you clearly don't.

And no, you DONT understand the fallacy. Read my last post and understand why.

[Kamehameha34]

You didn't answer the question.

Once you answer it, you'll understand how fallacious your argument is.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You didn't answer the question. Once you answer it, you'll understand how fallacious your argument is.

alright, ill answer it, in detail.

firstly. the analogy doesn't suggest ANYTHING to be TRUE, or UNTRUE. THAT is where your reasoning falters.

he makes a suggestion that seems quite outlandish, that is, a being a teapot in space, in orbit around the sun. that is a claim he made up. nothing was said to be true or untrue, but seeing he made up the claim, it is only rational to assume that it is untrue, not due to it being ridiculous, but due to there being no proof for it.

he is saying that if this claim were to be taught as the gospel, and taught in sunday school, then it would easily become a claim that many believe to be true.

Hence, it being an ANALOGY. get it yet?

seeing that ive put forward an answer that has succesfully refuted your claim, it seems that there isnt much falliciousness behind my argument at all. it's your arrogance talking. you should learn to curb that, because it borders on trolling.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: pikatore I've found an analogy which more or less sums up what I've been trying to tell theists who believe that the burden of proof should not be placed on them: Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Comments?

There exists a fundamental difference between Russell's Teapot and a supernatural deity.

The teapot is subject to statements of probability.

However, I do agree that the burden of proof lies with he who asserts.

[sdbest]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 ... both claims are unfalsifiable.

Actually the god claim is falsifiable in this sense. People who believe in gods tend to make claims about gods. For example, there's a belief that gods answer prayers, or are omnipotent, or all loving, and so on.

While the general claim about god may not be falsifiable, the particular claims about gods that people make can easily be proven to be false.

David Hume did it admirably in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, published posthumously in 1779, originally with neither the author's or the publisher's names for fear of persecution.

Regards
S.

[Jack]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You didn't answer the question.

Yes he did, quite clearly.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Tell me, why is the russel's teapot claim untrue?

Quote by: pikatore The russel's teapot claim isn't true or untrue! It's a damn analogy!

An analogy doesn't make claims. It's just a little story that can be applied to other situations. You can say it's a poor analogy, then tell us why. But you can't say it's untrue. Of course it's untrue. Did you think Russel was supposing an actual teapot in space?

Thanks for that link, sdbest.

[Kamehameha34]

firstly. the analogy doesn't suggest ANYTHING to be TRUE, or UNTRUE.

So it's ultimately meaningless.

he makes a suggestion that seems quite outlandish, that is, a being a teapot in space, in orbit around the sun. that is a claim he made up. nothing was said to be true or untrue, but seeing he made up the claim,

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

it is only rational to assume that it is untrue, not due to it being ridiculous, but due to there being no proof for it.

Ad ignoratium.

No proof for the positive =/= proof for the negative.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Zhavric Tremendous cop out. At issue isn't anyone's freedom to believe in specific phenomenon. At issue is the validity of beliefs which are outlandish and unevidenced.

I really don't think theists care if their claims are logical or not. I'm probably more of a what you called a fundementalist agtnostic, whatever that is.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: RickSp What amazes me is the next step. Theists go from asserting a belief in the unprovable teapot to worshipping the teapot, to trying to convince others to worship the teapot, which now has a complete dogma attached with demands for emotional and financial commitment along with rigid sets of rules enforced by teapot acolytes. And the worst part is that teapot believers are always ready to engage in bloody conflict with those who insist that it isn't a teapot - it really is a toaster!

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.