Talk:Russell's Teapot

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)

Tsoukalos's Teapot[edit]

Would someone more clever than me like to make use of this? (Provided it isn't under legal restrictions, of course.) Godless11B's gonna die the way he lived. 21:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Book References? Not necessary![edit]

I'd like to also add this: about us having reason to believe slightly more in Religions because of ancient texts, here is the deal: Those "ancient books" were not always ancient, at a certain time (the one in which they were written), they were still brand new. So, if i make the claim of a teapot (you can see my post "differences between a teapot and a god" to see what i could define the teapot's true nature like), i can claim i had the idea of the teapot because i was enlightened by the Glorious Teapot itself of its presence through said Teapot's telepathic messages, and it chose me to be the one to carry on its magnificent truth to the world; this claim of having been contacted by the teapot is just as legit as scriptures, and in 2000 years, will be considered an "ancient scripture" as well. Imadmagician (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Feminism is the teapot[edit]

Or so say the MRAs. Because things like "there exists a systemic wage gap" or "there exists systemic misogyny in promotion practices" is really as difficult to prove or disprove as Russell's Teapot. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh god, the comments. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the MRA crowd are cargo cult atheists. They adopt our argument style, but never really the substance of it. Russel's teapot is a response to arguments of the general form "Isn't there a chance you're wrong?" No one has ever framed wage gaps that way, indeed, they are based almost exclusively on material observation. A similar behavior they engage is fallacy-spotting, wherein you engage in the fallacy fallacy to "win" arguments.
I don't mean to say that they're not true atheists. Just that they take on the stylings of people trying to present genuinely rational arguments and are confused when they are, in turn, considered irrational.
It's subtle. I don't know what to make of it, but it's definitely more than a bit corroborated by the actions of "objectors" we get here on rationalwiki. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The Aliens[edit]

... came across Russell's comment as the 'radio bubble' reached their very sensitive Project Osma equivalent and decided they needed a flying teapot to go with their flying saucers and bedstead - they are visiting Earth to complete the bedroom fittings with tea-maker. :) Anna Livia (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Russell's Tesla[edit]

There now sits in orbit a Tesla Roadster, playing "space oddity" on a loop. This Tesla will soon orbit the sun, forever. When we rebuild our civilization after global warming is finally cancelled out by the nuclear winter, we will have long forgotten the story of the Tesla in space. But there it will be, and someone, somewhere, will make a joke about there being a car in space that no one can prove or disprove is there, yet there it will be. CorruptUser (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


Could Planet X, Nibiru and similar be designated 'Russell's Teapot objects'? Anna Livia (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)