If Russell's teapot is an analogy to faith, then wouldn't that mean, by definition, that nothing can be trusted?
It is a known fact that religion is based on faith (for the most part) and as a result many atheists turn to Russell's teapot to completely debunk faith's legitimacy (i've been around the internet lately). However, wouldn't using Russell's teapot as a "viable tool against religion" also mean that things like hope, love, and morality are just as "petty" as belief in a God "without evidence"? I'm confused. It seems like a perfect case of false analogy to me. Can y'all shed some light as the core thinking behind this concept?