• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Russel's Teapot is not God

C

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
questfortruth said:
How did Russell equate his crazy teapot to God? There is no way to compare: God is everywhere, but the teapot is in one place.

Everybody knows, that it is just a crazy joke of atheists:
1. Red invisible dragon in the garage,
2. Russell's Teapot,
3. Pink Unicorn, etc.
The problem with these is that they are not omnipresent. Please consider "Unicorn", which exists everywhere, and in your heart and lungs as well.

And if the red dragon is invisible, but it is known, that he is red (and he looks like a dragon), then somebody has seen it. Thus, he is visible, not invisible.

Problem of Evil
Click to expand...

Your assertion....if you see it, it's not God (invisible). If you can describe it, you can see it--thus, God is nondescript.

Yet, man is made in God's image, and the bible says that Jesus was an ordinary looking man.

In God's image how? Physical image? But there are many physical images of mankind (including womankind). There are short kids, skinny kids, kids who play on rocks, rough kids, tough kids, even kids with chicken pox. (I would imagine that they love Armour hot dogs...since those are the words to their commercial). There are people of every race. Perhaps, God is not so much what we see as what we know? God makes mistakes, and so do humans. Maybe that is how we are in his image? Perhaps instead of asking God for forgiveness, we should forgive God? Forgive God for destroying the world with a flood (Noah)? Forgive God for not answering prayers, though he is all powerful and all knowing?

Maybe God has a way of making one of us see him one way, and another person seeing him another? Maybe to one person he is a red dragon, and to another person he is a teapot, and to another he is a pink unicorn? Perception isn't always through the eyes, sometimes it is what the brain perceives, and if anyone can pull it off, God would be the one.

Gilbert And Sullivan – Things Are Seldom What They Seem lyrics

Please see link about Gilbert and Sullivan's perceptions.
 
Samantha Rinne

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
questfortruth said:
How did Russell equate his crazy teapot to God? There is no way to compare: God is everywhere, but the teapot is in one place.

Everybody knows, that it is just a crazy joke of atheists:
1. Red invisible dragon in the garage,
2. Russell's Teapot,
3. Pink Unicorn, etc.
The problem with these is that they are not omnipresent. Please consider "Unicorn", which exists everywhere, and in your heart and lungs as well.

And if the red dragon is invisible, but it is known, that he is red (and he looks like a dragon), then somebody has seen it. Thus, he is visible, not invisible.

Problem of Evil
Click to expand...

The problem of Russel's Teapot (I've never heard of this theory, but I can get the idea) is neither a teapot, nor a red dragon, nor a pink unicorn is what Paul Tillich calls the Ultimate Concern. That is, as interesting as a pink unicorn is, you wouldn't be willing to die for that idea. Nor would you be willing to change your life for it.
 
Samantha Rinne

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
PruePhillip said:
Hi Quest, just a generic question - HOW do you add a new thread to this forum?
In the Political one you just go to the general conversation and add a new topic.
thanks
Click to expand...

There is a big blue button at the bottom of the page. If there isn't, it should say something about you not having permission for some reason.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Samantha Rinne said:
There is a big blue button at the bottom of the page. If there isn't, it should say something about you not having permission for some reason.
Click to expand...

Samantha, can YOU post a new thread for me if I give you the text?
For some reason I can't do this, and the topic of recent excavations is one I would like to get comment on.
There's paid membership on this site and maybe I can't access some options.
Thanks.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
How did Russell equate his crazy teapot to God? There is no way to compare: God is everywhere, but the teapot is in one place.

Everybody knows, that it is just a crazy joke of atheists:
1. Red invisible dragon in the garage,
2. Russell's Teapot,
3. Pink Unicorn, etc.
The problem with these is that they are not omnipresent. Please consider "Unicorn", which exists everywhere, and in your heart and lungs as well.

And if the red dragon is invisible, but it is known, that he is red (and he looks like a dragon), then somebody has seen it. Thus, he is visible, not invisible.

Problem of Evil
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're saying,but burden of proof argument is more common sense than a position.

Even in a court example, if a prosecutor list the accused charges, you wouldnt expect the judge to ask defense attorney to provide evidence for his opponents claim and/or counter a claim without support.

If the prosecutor doesn't want to support the charges he quoted, the defense can't counter and the case pretty much moot.

It's really not religious in nature. If a teacher told his student they cheated it's up to the teacher to provide proof. The student can't get in trouble for an unproven claim.
 
ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
PruePhillip said:
For some reason I can't do this, and the topic of recent excavations is one I would like to get comment on.
There's paid membership on this site and maybe I can't access some options.
Click to expand...

You don't need to pay to start a new topic. Perhaps you're looking in the list of recent posts or something? You need to navigate to the specific forum you want to post in, for example General Religious Debates, then there should be a "Post New Thread" button, top right and bottom after the page number list.
 
It Aint Necessarily So

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Samantha Rinne said:
The problem of Russel's Teapot (I've never heard of this theory, but I can get the idea) is neither a teapot, nor a red dragon, nor a pink unicorn is what Paul Tillich calls the Ultimate Concern. That is, as interesting as a pink unicorn is, you wouldn't be willing to die for that idea. Nor would you be willing to change your life for it.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point of the analogy, which about what these things have in common with gods, not the differences. All analogies compare things that are alike in ways and unalike in others. Pointing out irrelevant differences is like hearing the story of the fox and the grapes told about somebody who becomes bitter because he can't get what he wants, and somebody pointing out that he isn't a fox. The similarities are what makes the analogy apt. The differences are irrelevant.

You seem to be saying that it is different to believe without evidence if what you believe in affects you significantly, which is irrelevant to the argument. Actually, unjustified belief in a invisible red dragon would probably be safer for the reasons you give, unless one decides to die for that as well.

It's interesting to see how a willingness to die for it is used as an argument that a belief is correct. We're watching thousands of people dying daily now over a belief people are willing to die for. It doesn't make them right. Their belief is still false.

PruePhillip said:
Samantha, can YOU post a new thread for me if I give you the text?
For some reason I can't do this
Click to expand...

Go to the top of this page, find the line HomeForums>Religious Topics>Religious Debates>General Religious Debates . To the far right is a diagram that looks like a small family tree. Click it. Then click Forums. Then find Religious Debates, and under that, General Religious Debates. At the upper right is the Post New Thread button. Write your post and then hit Create Thread.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
It Aint Necessarily So said:
You're missing the point of the analogy, which about what these things have in common with gods, not the differences. All analogies compare things that are alike in ways and unalike in others. Pointing out irrelevant differences is like hearing the story of the fox and the grapes told about somebody who becomes bitter because he can't get what he wants, and somebody pointing out that he isn't a fox. The similarities are what makes the analogy apt. The differences are irrelevant.

You seem to be saying that it is different to believe without evidence if what you believe in affects you significantly, which is irrelevant to the argument. Actually, unjustified belief in a invisible red dragon would probably be safer for the reasons you give, unless one decides to die for that as well.

It's interesting to see how a willingness to die for it is used as an argument that a belief is correct. We're watching thousands of people dying daily now over a belief people are willing to die for. It doesn't make them right. Their belief is still false.



Go to the top of this page, find the line HomeForums>Religious Topics>Religious Debates>General Religious Debates . To the far right is a diagram that looks like a small family tree. Click it. Then click Forums. Then find Religious Debates, and under that, General Religious Debates. At the upper right is the Post New Thread button. Write your post and then hit Create Thread.
Click to expand...

Much appreciated. Thank you,
 
lewisnotmiller

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
If a person has no faith in God, he well can murder somebody.
Click to expand...

Something we agree on!
I have no faith in God, and it's entirely possible for me to murder someone.

What prevents this isn't my lack of capability, but my morals. Shock horror, subjective morals at that.

If I HAD faith in God, of course, I like to think I would still not murder someone (despite being every bit as capable).
But both theists and atheists alike need to guard against extremist thought that tries to provide simple 'answers' for life's problems, or dehumanise others.

Some have said it better, but there lies the path to Hell. Albeit I believe that to be a metaphorical turn of phrase, rather than a literal destination.
 
Kangaroo Feathers

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Russell's Teapot deals with untestable claims, not just gods.

I'm curious how you think that adding "omnipresence" to the mix helps your case.

I mean, your claim is still untestable - and so it's still subject to all of Russell's criticisms - but you've just added to the claim's implausibility. If anything, I'd say it hurts your position... no?
Click to expand...
Anything to justify special pleading based handwaves of an argument that makes him deeply uncomfortable if approached with anything approaching intellectual honesty.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
ratiocinator said:
It isn't an argument it's an analogy that makes a perfectly good point about the philosophical burden of proof.
Click to expand...

Yeah its an analogy, but a very poor one created by someone who has not engaged with some decent philosophical argumentation. Its easy to impress others just like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top