There's probably no God

[Richard Dawkins]

Atheist campaign posters are now on 800 buses around Britain saying "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7818980.stm

I sort of like the intent behind it. To encourage people to open their minds and stop accepting hogwash without evidence, to focus on the important things in life instead of the make-believe outside of it. But the whole point of this 'atheist' message seems to fail by putting 'probably' in there. It's an agnostic message and promotes bugger all. There isn't a (definitive) proof behind the statement without 'probably', so Dawkins is forced to include it but it now has all the impact of a wet sponge. Religions don't play by the same game, they don't knock on your door and say "There might be a God, want to join our church?" but then again they don't advertise on buses (do they?). If you're going to counter-act bold religious propaganda at least have the stones to say "there is no god".

If you've got half a brain you'd be able to recognise the absence of anything supernatural from the age of 10, you should know that without having a bus tell you so. If you're of religious persuasion I doubt a bus is going to do anything but piss you off. So I don't know how anyone thought this might be a good idea.

What do you think? Good idea or bad?

[Jono]

That's been going on for a while now. Started last summer I believe.

And writing, 'There is no God' on the side of a bus is pretty much the equivalent of writing 'All non-believers shall go to hell', or 'convert or burn (in hell, obviously)'; as inflammatory as the inevitable petrol-bombings it would encourage. I I can't see any bus company willing to run such adverts.

[Frank]

And writing, 'There is no God' on the side of a bus is pretty much the equivalent of writing 'All non-believers shall go to hell', or 'convert or burn (in hell, obviously)'; as inflammatory as the inevitable petrol-bombings it would encourage.

It's hardly inflamatory. Controversial, perhaps.

There's probably no god

I'm down with it. The intent, IIRC, from the original folks behind the campaign was simply as a response to the rather depressing "You'll burn in hell lest you repent!" style stuff. That is: It's not there to change your mind, but to bring a smile to folks who're more usually confronted with things telling them "If you don't change: bad things will happen!", rather than "You're likely correct. Have a good day!"

I think that's certainly why they've been warmly recieved. Folks who're incensed by it, I'd imagine, are the minority. Even many of those who disagree with the statement are generally happy about it: it's promoting discussion of faith, belief and its importance in life.

I'm quite happy to see that happen. Whether it's important or not, I don't particularly care. It's interesting and engaging in a more pleasant way than the 'game' that the 'opposition' are playing by. (I.e. the religious scheme promoters citing fire and brimstone as punishments). That said: it does seem like the first 'serious' shot in response to the original religious stuff, indicating more to come. Before this folks could 'happily' ignore the firey threats of damnation, now there's discussion about it. Soon there'll be no avoiding it!

I relish those sorts of discussions and things, but I hear others are less...optimistic about them.

[Hennessy]

I've started another thread now in an attempt not to end up trawling through the long-winded tedium that is a religion argument thread on the sinner, but I suspect I will anyway so I'll get my point in early.

I agree with Dawkins. An arts student myself, I nevertheless understand that scientists eventually have to find proof of something for it to be accepted as fact, or if they are lazy, write a long and complicated string of letters followed by numbers and say "ah ha! Disprove that Jemima", and nobody will because it would take an atom smasher the size of Venus or a telescope the size of the Moon or some other get-out clause. Which is why many science departments these days have been relegated to working out the formulas behind the perfect piece of toast or what would happen if you fed a bull elephant LSD in a controlled experiment (it went mad for 30 mins then dropped dead -science advances, step by tottering step). Soon all the waiters and barstaff in London will have unpublished theses on exactly how much pickle you put in the perfect cheesburger, it's all part of the enquiring scientific mind, I sympathise.

Nothing wrong with advertising yourself as an athiest, either. Scientologists have billboards the size of Tom Cruise's ego erected in LA at the rate of one per D-List celebrity converted to the faith, or so I have absolutely no qualms about a bus advert nobody is ever going to read anyway because it clearly lacks the necessary level of celebrity endorsement to be selling something as big as athiesm, especially in London. Chuck in Jordan's tits somewhere near the message and it could take off.

Finally, if God ever gave a damn where is he? He's not in the clouds, we checked there, he's not in space, there is nothing there either. Unless he's skulking around above one of the moons of Jupiter in a very advanced spaceship or living like a James Bond villian in a sub-aquatic stronghold he's defying some of the laws of his own creation by his very existence, and thus, surely like dark matter or dark energy he should be treated as an ongoing scientific enquiry, pending but not proven.

(unless we build a fishnet the size of the milky way, that might bag him, here are some oddly shaped symbols to prove it:)

The science of boiling an egg...

[Guest]

Which is why many science departments these days have been relegated to working out the formulas behind the perfect piece of toast...

I'm sorry but what is your point here? Scientists are wasting their time instead of working towards a proof against god? I'm not sure of the relevance of what you're saying.

...it clearly lacks the necessary level of celebrity endorsement to be selling something as big as athiesm, especially in London. Chuck in Jordan's tits somewhere near the message and it could take off.

If anyone in the street needs tits or celebrity endorsement to accept or engage with the statement, then quite frankly what they think is less than irrelevant. Besides, is Dawkins not celebrity enough for the general public?

Finally, if God ever gave a damn where is he? He's not in the clouds, we checked there...

Looking for a physical manifestation of a god is not the way to go about proving its existence. Even the religious will admit that god isn't hiding behind a cloud. God can be disproved without looking up from a piece of paper, god can be disproved with logical argument rather than scientific experimentation.

[Haunted]

An agnostic slogan would be "Who knows".
A strong agnostic slogan would "You can't know"

The 'probably' works. It's not to big up atheism or convert on lookers (anyone seriously converted by a bus ad probably already has more a few screws loose). It's just being cheeky, that's all. And it may get one or two brains thinking and they may follow the web addresses on the ad and discover something they like, who knows?

Originally it was started out of frustration at the "Alpha course" plastering their adverts all over London telling people how non-christians would burn in a lake of fire.

[Lid]

I see that the UDS's former almost-resident nutter, Stephen Green, of Christian Voice, has filed a complaint against the advert on grounds of 'truthfulness' and 'substantiveness'.

Surely if the ASA is going to rule on the existence of God, we wouldn't need the adverts in the first place. Further, why aren't Christian adverts (per the Alpha course mentioned above) banned for the same grounds, mysteriously overlooked by the complainant, Mr Green?

[Jono]

Was he the one who argued in favour of intelligent design in 2005? I'm not suprised his argument is incoherent now, because it was just as bad then!

[Cain]

I can kind of see the point that the complainants are making.

The ASA's code states "marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims". The regulator said it would assess the complaint and decide whether to contact the advertiser.

Unless the advertisers have documentary proof that there's "probably no God," their adverts probably aren't admissable according to ASA rules.

The Alpha Course ads don't make any statements in the same way; it asks questions designed to provoke curiosity.

http://uk.alpha.org/files/uk/A5postcardv5.jpg

[WashingtonIrving]

The ASA's code states "marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims". The regulator said it would assess the complaint and decide whether to contact the advertiser.

Does anyone else think the meeting to try and decide this one will be absolutely hilarious? How do you prove a statement that only claims to be probable anyway? What view of probability do you take? Which God probably doesn't exist? It'll be like the bit in the Alan Partridge show where he tries to get some experts to tell him whether God exists or not.

I don't see how anyone can take it particularly seriously. It isn't like they're using an inflammatory statement like 'God is dead'.

[WashingtonIrving]

Looking for a physical manifestation of a god is not the way to go about proving its existence. Even the religious will admit that god isn't hiding behind a cloud. God can be disproved without looking up from a piece of paper, god can be disproved with logical argument rather than scientific experimentation

If you could post that for us I think it would really clear some things up.

[Guest]

Looking for a physical manifestation of a god is not the way to go about proving its existence. Even the religious will admit that god isn't hiding behind a cloud. God can be disproved without looking up from a piece of paper, god can be disproved with logical argument rather than scientific experimentation

If you could post that for us I think it would really clear some things up.

"Can be" not "has been".

[RedCelt69]

How do you prove a statement that only claims to be probable anyway? What view of probability do you take?

The use of the word "probably" basically means that the ad can't be challenged. If it could, the long-running campaign for a certain lager ("probably the best lager in the world") wouldn't have been quite so long-running. After all, it certainly was not the best lager in the world.

Which God probably doesn't exist?

God (with a capital G) is a proper noun, not a common noun. It is the name of the Christian god. The slogan on the side of the bus is in all caps, so it is ambiguous. The report on the BBC site erroneously uses "God" rather than "GOD", making the same assumption as you.

God is the Christian god, which is the same as the Jewish god - which was originally named YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah (although due to the prohibition of using the name, it is sometimes written as "G-d"). Allah is the name of the Islamic god, although it, too, is sometimes referred to as "God". All 3 religions worship the same god (and God).

Referring to any other deity as God is nonsensical and incorrect. Then again, when has that stopped anyone?

[RedCelt69]

In this multi-cultural society, I find it disappointing that the campaign excludes polytheists. I would imagine that Hindus, for instance, might have cause to wonder which of their gods purportedly don't exist.

Even "There are probably no gods" would be inaccurate. A distinction I've been at pains to point out on numerous occassions when given a flawed definition of atheism.

There are those who worship volcanoes or the sun as gods. Try telling them that their god doesn't exist.

A more accurate proclamation would be: "There are probably no gods which possess sentience and the ability to affect your life in an adverse or favourable way. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life"

Although it might require a bendy-bus to fit that all on... or a considerably smaller typeface.

[Frank]

Hooray!

[WashingtonIrving]

God can be disproved without looking up from a piece of paper, god can be disproved with logical argument rather than scientific experimentation

So how do you justify the claim that he can be so disproved?

[Haunted]

Douche
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 832647.stm

[jollytiddlywink]

He was full of "shock" and "horror" when he saw an ad that said God probably doesn't exist? I hope he never reads Nietzsche, he'd have a stroke!

[RedCelt69]

I hope he never reads Nietzsche, he'd have a stroke!

Personally, I've never found Nietzsche to be sexually stimulating.

[WashingtonIrving]

Not even the bit in Zarathustra when he gets it on with his eagle and his serpent? I'm sure he's naked with them at some point anyway.

Referring to any other deity as God is nonsensical

Nonsensical?

I'm pretty sure when philosophers talk about a putative omnieverythingunderthesun deity they use 'God', hence the phrase 'God of the philosophers', which isn't meant to be any god in particular but just the very idea of an all-powerful being, but why quibble over something so unimportant?