I don't think the analogy with religious belief can be rightly made in this case. There is no evidence that there is an orbiting teapot and therefore no reason to believe such a teapot exists. Theists, however, have evidence (in the sense of "indication", not "conclusive proof") for the existence of a personal god. The analogy would be correct if there would have been evidence of a satellite teapot (many people reporting strange teaspills from the sky, or something like that). So the real question is: is the evidence theists come up with convincing? As an atheist, I think not. But IMHO we have to be intellectually honest and cannot righly represent the theist claim as a random thesis without any argumentation.
But I'm an ignostic, and I ask what is the "teapot" ? And what do you mean or what do you want by that? And what do you think it is or should be? And the "teaists" and the "ateaists" don't like me.
I’m no expert but I believe Buddhists don’t believe in God. Would that make including the wheel in the ending with all the rest misleading? Or does that wheel signify something other than Buddhism?
That’s what I thought upon seeing it, it all depends on what version of Buddhism you believe in. Personally I believe that The Buddha was not/has not become a god, and that Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion. Of course bringing reincarnation into the mix changes things.
Reality is relative to your own interpretation because your conscious experience of reality can only be felt by you what you believe to be true is in fact true
Nope, believing in God is super dumb! Exactly as dumb as believing in the teapot. I like these videos. Interesting themes, and well done animations. :)
There is no evidence for revolving tea, so of course it doesn’t make sense. But there is a ton of evidence for God. Not to mention the TEAleological argument. This argument only makes sense if there is equal evidence for revolving tea and God.
@@querywizard No, an athiest is someone that doesn't believe in a God, whereas an agnostic doesn't have a set belief in His existence or nonexistence, or simply isn't sure
I drove a Teaist crazy by agreeing with him, but then disagreeing about its color 🤣
This is my favorite thought experiment ever. Because it pretty much summarizes every thought experiment ever known to man. Thank you for this video.
This has very pretty animation. I saw a clip of this on tiktok, and ngl, I thought it was from a ted-Ed video
The A-Tea-ist doesn't necessarily believe Tea doesn't exist, but instead finds the proposition that Tea does exist unconvincing.
That sounds more like the skeptic, who neither believes in the Tea's existance nor believes in the Tea's non-existance.
It does for some and doesn’t for others ... let’s all keep our hats on
Very good and funny videos bring a great sense of entertainment!
No, probably not. ;-)
FSM boiled for our sins
I don't think the analogy with religious belief can be rightly made in this case. There is no evidence that there is an orbiting teapot and therefore no reason to believe such a teapot exists. Theists, however, have evidence (in the sense of "indication", not "conclusive proof") for the existence of a personal god. The analogy would be correct if there would have been evidence of a satellite teapot (many people reporting strange teaspills from the sky, or something like that). So the real question is: is the evidence theists come up with convincing? As an atheist, I think not. But IMHO we have to be intellectually honest and cannot righly represent the theist claim as a random thesis without any argumentation.
Puns are fun
Teaist and Ateaist
I see what you did there!
But I'm an ignostic, and I ask what is the "teapot" ? And what do you mean or what do you want by that? And what do you think it is or should be? And the "teaists" and the "ateaists" don't like me.
Theist! HAHAHHAHA!! NICE
FLAT EARTH created by a SUPREME BEING
I’m no expert but I believe Buddhists don’t believe in God. Would that make including the wheel in the ending with all the rest misleading? Or does that wheel signify something other than Buddhism?
That’s what I thought upon seeing it, it all depends on what version of Buddhism you believe in. Personally I believe that The Buddha was not/has not become a god, and that Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion. Of course bringing reincarnation into the mix changes things.
Reality is relative to your own interpretation because your conscious experience of reality can only be felt by you what you believe to be true is in fact true
I was getting worried that no one else is thinking of it, thanks!🙏🏻
what about homophobes?
Reality is what instruments are recording or detecting since their interpretation without bias.
Nope, believing in God is super dumb! Exactly as dumb as believing in the teapot.
I like these videos. Interesting themes, and well done animations. :)
The scheptic can also be defined as an ateaist
It’s called agnostic not the same as atheist
Talk to Trent Horn
Teaist and Ateaist 😂😂😂
There is no evidence for revolving tea, so of course it doesn’t make sense. But there is a ton of evidence for God. Not to mention the TEAleological argument. This argument only makes sense if there is equal evidence for revolving tea and God.
Remind me, what is the evidence for God?
An atheist is not concerned whether or not any gods exists. What makes him or her an atheist is simply the lack of faith that gods do exist.
The "skeptic" or agnostic, is atheist by definition.
@@querywizard No, an athiest is someone that doesn't believe in a God, whereas an agnostic doesn't have a set belief in His existence or nonexistence, or simply isn't sure
What kind of insane person would apply scientific method to beliefs, which by definition are not based on proof?
TheReal Minus25 which is exactly why belief in itself is irrational.
What if someone believed they could harm you. Would you apply a scientific method to find out more?
Why would you believe anything that is not backed up by atleast some proof?
@@XDCherylLi What is this rationality you speak of within an atheistic materialistic framework?