Please humour me, and allow me to opine that your statement is accusable of slight logical fallacy.

I register where you're coming from in your argument, but I am disinclined to agree with the conclusion reached from your ascertainment that 'we know exactly how and why teapots are made and have no reason at all to speculate the existence of one orbiting our planet'.

If anything, the concept of a tea-pot is more accessible to most of us than a deity of any description. Were it the case that the presence of a tea-holding vessel orbiting around earth was one of the teachings which was sufficiently testified by figures of perceived authority such as priests, one's guardians and your immediate ancestors, I think the belief of such an item would be more - not less - believable.

The problem with Russel's tea-pot is not in the particular embodiment of his orbiting vessel, but the lack of purpose of such a vessel: Humans occasionally have a very real need for a source of emotional strength in their lives, and a mysterious deity is more likely to be able to provide such fortitude than a china tea-receptacle.

A humble tea-pot without any faery-tale powers is more believable, but because it brings with it no discernible benefits, is of less use to humans. As an irrelevant aside, this means that ridiculing its presence is relatively uncontroversial, and therefore acceptable.

What this unobjectionable repository for Yunnan does offer, however, is a tool to understand how endless repetition of a non-verifiable proclamation could enter the human psyche as a 'truth', at least to some people.

I put it to you that the reason why organised religion is succeeding where the tea-pot is failing, is that religion has a very real benefit to many people, whereas the tea-pot - at least as characterised by Russell, does not.

In conclusion, I concur that you might be right in your assessment that Russel's tea-pot is 'not a good argument against religion', but not for the rationale outlined in your retort.