this post was submitted on
349 points (72% like it)
555 up votes 206 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,121,624 readers

3,065 users here now

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
New posts: New Rising
Self posts: New Relevant
Non-image posts: New Relevant

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
08/11 Regional Conference - St. Paul MN
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

348
349

Hm. good point. (imgur.com)

submitted ago by jwinf843

all 53 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]canneddirt 11 points12 points ago

I never heard of Russel's teapot before coming to r/Atheism (yay American Public schools!). Anyone else get the feeling that "teaching to the test" is destroying critical thinking in this country? sigh....

[–]joshawwa -1 points0 points ago

I hadn't heard of it either! And yeah...

[–]1zero2two8eight 1 point2 points ago

PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWERS! Iiiiiiitty-bitty living space.

[–]droplet739 3 points4 points ago

I'm pretty sure there's something in math which can't be proved or disproved. And they've proven it can't be proved or disproved. Don't quote me on that though.

[–]FlightOfStairs 0 points1 point ago

You're probably thinking of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

"The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, a corollary of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency."

[–]I_guess_this_will_do 9 points10 points ago

I can't get past this.

[–]Skwerl23 2 points3 points ago

Not everyone uses photoshop.

[–]jwinf843[S] 2 points3 points ago

I use MS Paint. The photoshop of the poor.

[–]xmod2 5 points6 points ago

Paint.net

No more excuses!

[–]jwinf843[S] 1 point2 points ago

Thank you :)

[–]1zero2two8eight 0 points1 point ago

Thank you for this. I'm starting a religion based on you.

[–]Skwerl23 0 points1 point ago

and xmod2 shined light from above, and brought forth knowledge which was impossible to know from any man. etc etc...

[–]Shiredragon 3 points4 points ago

Yup, when I have to strain to read it, it is a downvote.

[–]Vegemeister -1 points0 points ago

Joke's on you: shoul've used PNG.

[–]captain_right 2 points3 points ago

Except it would be possible, no matter how difficult, to (dis)prove the existence of the teacup.

The concept of god/deity is based on the deity being beyond the physical universe, in a different realm so to speak. I don't believe either way and I'm against anyone arguing either side radically. Arguing burden of proof is faulty when the concept itself cannot possibly be proven within our universe.

[–]Audeen 1 point2 points ago

It's a magic teacup. It uses teacup-magic to make itself 100% unobservable.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

Arguing burden of proof is faulty when the concept itself cannot possibly be proven within our universe.

Never mind proof. How about just arguing burden of probability?

[–]captain_right 1 point2 points ago

And how exactly do you propose we go about calculating the probability of something we don't have any information on and can't observe?

[–]threesimplewords 2 points3 points ago

So basically you presented him with logic and he accepted it? I actually think many people on Reddit would surprised how many religious people are actually willing to listen to, and consider what atheists have to say if they present themselves like decent human beings. Believe it or not, i know many religious people who are very rational and respectful when it comes to other viewpoints such as atheism. they have no problem admitting when a good point is brought up that they don't have an answer for, or when a strong critique is made about their religion. I'm not quite sure why some of them are still theists, but i think the key on both sides of the isle is respect and keeping an open mind. Just try keeping this in mind when dealing with all the nuts

[–]jwinf843[S] 1 point2 points ago

This. Very much this.

I was just having a discussion with my friend online, there was no need for viotrole. I wasn't impeding on his rights or disrespecting him in any way, nor him me. I think that people are rational animals whether or not we act like it individually; when faced with reason in a friendly setting, curiosity will take hold.

[–]Cevian 1 point2 points ago

Nice Science avatar pic.

El Psy Congroo.

[–]jwinf843[S] 0 points1 point ago

El. Psy. Congroo.

[–]brainburger 1 point2 points ago

It was Russel's teapot that made me stop calling myself an agnostic, and start calling myself an atheist. It was because it made me see clearly that the chances of God being true are much less than 50/50.

[–]NoGodizGood 0 points1 point ago

Enjoyed the read. Not sure if it's going to get a ton of upvotes in /r/atheism but we over in /r/thefacebookdelusion enjoy reading stuff like this. Thanks for sharing.

[–]squigs 0 points1 point ago

If you believe something to be true, why does there need to be a point? It's simply what you believe.

[–]heplectric 0 points1 point ago

and now i understand the mascot of r/atheism...

[–]tweak4ever 0 points1 point ago

If only it were always that simple

[–]Nozzle33 0 points1 point ago

Good one! Straight from the iphone app :PPPPP

[–]xmod2 0 points1 point ago

It's a teapot and it orbits somewhere between Earth and Mars, heretic.

Enjoy hell!!

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]jwinf843[S] 16 points17 points ago

Sometimes the best arguments have already been made and the best you can do is to repeat them for those yet to hear.

[–]greeklemoncake 0 points1 point ago

Russell's Teapot is r/atheism's 'mascot'. Just look up the top.

[–]TheDoktorIsIn -2 points-1 points ago

The thing that always confused me about Russell's teapot is the burden of proof. Sure, it falls upon the argumentative party to prove the existence of a deity or deities, but wouldn't the same burden of proof fall upon the opposing party to prove that there isn't?

For example, someone trying to turn me to atheism (I'm agnostic) would say there is no deity, and I would say, "Well, just because we haven't discovered one yet, doesn't mean there isn't one," they would have to prove to me that one doesn't exist, no?

I'm not looking to start a debate because it could lead to seemingly-ridiculous theories like the universe is actually situated on the pinnacle of a celestial unicorn's horn (because how can you disprove that with current scientific faculties), I'm just looking to understand the argument more.

[–]DoxBox 10 points11 points ago

"wouldn't the same burden of proof fall upon the opposing party to prove that there isn't?"

No.

Disbelief in a claim is not a claim.

edit: Also, if you don't believe in a deity, you are an atheist already. If you do, you're a theist. Agnostic isn't middleground, it defines a different thing.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]dustlesswalnut 1 point2 points ago

I think the whole gnostic/agnostic thing is bullshit. There is no person on this planet that knows if there is a god or not, only those that believe there is one.

If one were to know there was a god, faith would be meaningless as you would have definitive proof and could rely on evidence instead of your feelings.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]dustlesswalnut 1 point2 points ago

What I'm saying isn't that one can't think they know that god exists, I'm saying that if one is a christian and one claims to know that god exists, then one has invalidated one's own faith. It's not faith if you know the answer.

[–]DoxBox 0 points1 point ago

You just solved my dilemma... what was I going to do today?

Drink wine.

[–]lordbadguy 3 points4 points ago

Well, it may or may not be standard usage, but I identify as atheist because I lack the belief in a god(s), not because I think it's impossible for there to be one.

I guess I don't consider atheism to require a burden of proof because I don't think that it asserts anything other than "I don't already believe this".

[–]TheDoktorIsIn 1 point2 points ago

ding there goes the lightbulb, I understand now. Thanks!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

You should never be called upon to prove a negative. Are you unsure about the Easter Bunny and Unicorns too? By definition you are probably an agnostic atheist like the rest of us.

[–]GlenHelder 1 point2 points ago

In claims where there is insufficient evidence we always assume the null hypotheses, except in the case of God for some reason.

For example, I really believe and feel in my heart that you killed someone last Tuesday. Prove to me that you didn't.

I think you'll agree that since I have put no evidence or plausible theory forward to suggest that you did commit murder, we should take the null hypotheses and assume that you are innocent of this non-existent crime. In the same vain, If I told you that I had a dragon living in my shed, you would likely wait for some proof to be provided before making yourself a dragon saddle thus taking the null hypotheses.

No honest atheist says that there is definitely no God, only that there is no reason to believe that there is.

[–]TheDoktorIsIn 0 points1 point ago

Thanks for the scientific analysis in the beginning. A previous poster made the lightbulb go off for me finally, but this really drives it home.

Also, last Tuesday... oh crap, I was at home by myself, I have no alibi... I'll give you all my upvotes to not call the cops.

[–]AmrcnXroads_Donor -3 points-2 points ago

Aww look at it, it's some keyboard warrior trying pretend like he's the paragon of reason.

[–]jwinf843[S] -1 points0 points ago

Trying this again with better resolution this time.

[–]Brute108 -1 points0 points ago

Wow, they didn't put up much of a fight, I'm surprised the teacup example was all it took. Kudos.

[–]meorah 1 point2 points ago

they asked "why?"

really, that's the only question they have to be willing to ask in order to be reasoned with.

[–]Brute108 0 points1 point ago

It's just so rare that someone decided to listen instead of argue and ignore.

[–]eduardog3000 -1 points0 points ago

What happened after?

[–]Lots42 -1 points0 points ago

We can send shit to mars to look for the goddamn teacup

[–]RoflCopter4 -3 points-2 points ago

Oh look, Facebook. How original.

[–]carvalio -4 points-3 points ago

You made a good point with that analogy, being that you can't prove god does or doesn't exist.

Good one Facebook Athetist warrior, you just made yourself look dumb.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 1296 on app-64 running 152ff4e.