4 ms·
The point of Russell's argument is that we should not believe in the Christian god/the teapot. Not that we should believe that those things do not exist. It's
by calderknight 3y ago
The point of Russell's argument is that we should not believe in the Christian god/the teapot. Not that we should believe that those things do not exist.
It's an argument against believing without evidence, not for believing without evidence.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agothe point of Russell's teapot is that even though the teapot (like this myth) is neither proven nor disproven, we should, and do, treat it unproven, because that is the default state until sufficient evidence arises It's an argument against entertaining theories that have no evidence, against ignorant agnosticism towards any arbitrary theory