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!