Re: Who the fuck cares about such semantics in this day and age?
See also, orbiting teapots.
Also known as Russell's teapot, cosmic teapot, Dawkins's Flying Spaghetti Monster, Garage dragon/elephant, ...
There's a real flaw with this class of argument: it really doesn't change anything apart from providing an analogy "both are improbable" based on a non-believer's own view that "the evidence doesn't show it". You think that the evidence doesn't show that a {g,G}od exists and you built an analogy around that.
See Wikipedia's page on the cosmic teapot for a primer on how other philosophers criticized this argument.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
