Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Sigh, I'm gettin like Curt in my old age, aren't I?
Bertrand Russel, famous atheist, said thusly, about agnostics:
The gist of the argument is that the argument "God is undisprovable, and thus we should all be agnostics" is bull.
Logically, we are agnostics about the Space Teapot because its existence has not been proven and can never be absolutely disproven. However, no reasonable person would say they are "agnostic" about the holy teapot; rather they would say that its undisprovability does not restrain them from making a judgement as to its PROBABILITY. In practice, since a space teapot is immensely improbable, they are teapot-atheists.
Now, having at one time been an agnostic myself, I would like to hear if there is any refutation to the teapot argument.
DAMN THE SPAMEDOS, FULL STEAM AHEAD!
Bertrand Russel, famous atheist, said thusly, about agnostics:
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 an 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.
The gist of the argument is that the argument "God is undisprovable, and thus we should all be agnostics" is bull.
Logically, we are agnostics about the Space Teapot because its existence has not been proven and can never be absolutely disproven. However, no reasonable person would say they are "agnostic" about the holy teapot; rather they would say that its undisprovability does not restrain them from making a judgement as to its PROBABILITY. In practice, since a space teapot is immensely improbable, they are teapot-atheists.
Now, having at one time been an agnostic myself, I would like to hear if there is any refutation to the teapot argument.
DAMN THE SPAMEDOS, FULL STEAM AHEAD!