I think both theists and atheists don't realize the full ramifications of Russell's Teapot. I would expect everyone here already knows what Russell's Teapot is. If not, check out a youtube video about it or the wikipedia page on it. The thing is, Russell's Teapot doesn't work as an analogy for the kind of god religious people imagine. Russell's Teapot is an analogy for philosophical god, a theoretical god that is completely uninvolved and leaves no evidence of itself. Theists claim that their God is undeniable, and obvious. Those are two things Russell's Teapot is not. No, to match most religious people's idea of a God you'd need a lighthouse in orbit between Earth and Mars, with a beam that outshines the sun, and periodically sweeps its beam over the Earth.
A debate about an unknowable hypothetical doesn't relate to religion in the real world. We see obviously there is not a lighthouse that's brighter than the sun in orbit between Earth and Mars. And we can conclude from that there isn't one. Russell's Teapot could be out there. The Lighthouse theists want people to believe is obviously not.
This is an idea I've had for years. I wasn't sure exactly what to refer to it as. On the one hand this is completely built upon Russell's Teapot and so I shouldn't take any credit for it, and thus call it Russell's Lighthouse. But I could also see that as seeming to put words into Bertrand's mouth, or be using his name to push my idea. My other thought was to refer to it as (my name) Lighthouse. But I thought that might be too egotistical too.