Do you ever get annoyed by those religious ads you see plastered all over town? TV comedy writer Ariane Sherine does, so she wrote an amusing article for The Guardian suggesting that atheists club together and pay for their own.
She calculated that if she could get 4,680 atheists to contribute £5 each, that would pay for an ad on a London bendy bus for a two weeks. The slogan: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life.”
Whether or not she expected to be taken seriously, her idea caught the imagination of political blogger Jon Worth who set up an online Pledgebank.
There’s still a long way to go before the target is reached, but surely it is worth a go. Just imagine the outraged squeals of offended religionists! How dare atheists express their opinion in public?
You can also sign up via Facebook. Go on. Spread a little godlessness.
UPDATE 08.07.08: The battle is hotting up! Pharyngula has just revealed that this billboard has just appeared in Seattle: 
78 Comments
Get rid of the “probably” and I’ll suscribe.
yea, i agree, get rid of the probably… this sounds more like an agnostic slogan than an atheis slogan
Doesn’t using the word “probably” make you sound more agnostic rather then atheist?
exactly, remove the probably
I’ll happily send US $20 (which is probably about five pounds, *sigh*) all the way from Southern California if you get rid of that “probably”.
The “probably” makes it an Agnostic bus..
It doesn`t make it agnostic.
Agnostics claim you cannot know for sure either way, which is theoretically correct, but you can`t know ANYTHING for sure, scientifically speaking, absolutely NOTHING is absolutely certain.
There is a very small probability that this is all an illusion, just as there is a very small probability that there really is a god(s). You can`t be 100% sure, but the probability is so small that it makes no sense to base your life on it, therefore atheist simply act as if there is no god(s), as this is most likely true.
So yeah, they might want to make it a little stronger and say “There`s almost certainly no God” or something, by doing so we’d truly show the difference between us and the fundies.
Well the odds do say there is about one chance in a centillion million that a god exists, if only because of the multiverse theory.
Then again, it’s only a theory. Damn I’m sounding like a creationist talking about evolution.
I hate myself, and cosmic inflation.
I like the “probably”. It is the more philosophically defensible position, and is entirely compatible with atheism.
The probability of a god of the Abrahamic tradition existing is so close to zero as to make no difference, but it is still a true statement to say it “probably does not exist”. An understatement, certainly, but that is part of its charm.
It also preempts the inevitable accusations of “fundamentalist” atheism and “dogmatism” which a less philosophically scrupulous statement would provoke.
But I can guarantee that even such a careful, unthreatening ad like this will provoke howls of outrage from some quarters.
Oh perfect. It doesn’t matter if it is atheist or agnostic it is propaganda. This is not only disrespectful to the religous but propaganda. Why do the same things the relgious have done? Can’t Atheism be the start of something postive that doesn’t repeat the mistakes of the major religions? Or are the cycles just going to repeat themselves again the only differnce being that this is secular. Propaganda is never a good idea. We should work to allowing people to believe what they want. What ever helps them get through the day. what the world needs now is respect not slogans.
JESS, Il tell you why.
It is not disrespectful to religious people. It is publicly stating our opinion.
It is important to let people know it is ok not to believe in god.
So many people would be atheist or agnostic, but they think that their is something wrong with them.
That is the point of propaganda. To get your point out.
Propaganda does not equal evil.
get rid of Probably
Nah, respect is right out. I lost all that a long time ago. I wouldn’t mind letting people sit around being religious if it were harmless. Trouble is, the religious fundamentalists that determine public policy have this country by the collar. So maybe in the future things can settle down; namely, when they understand what ’separation’ means, but for now… open fire.
I understand and agree the argument, but I agree with taking the ‘probably’ off. If just to sound more resolute.
If you really believe they would put that ad on a bus you’re as deluded as the god squad.
I don’t agree that propaganda is a good way to get opinions out, but I respect that it is just an oppion and concede that maybe I overreacted. I think that so much fundamentalist crimes happen because people are not willing to respect and encourage diversity. I think that is what we should work towards. The fact of the matter is there will always be religion. People need to believe in something. Personaly I’m an atheist but I study and respect relgions. At the very core of almost all relgions is the simple idea of love. Divine love. The rest is just politics. I don’t think telling people that there is no god will change there minds, people do not part with religious faith easily. I don’t think things lke this accomplish anything education and diversity is the key to anything improving.
I hope they have it easier than Starbucks did over here. Starbucks puts quotes from customers on their cups. One was a quote from an atheist that suggested god might not exist (might not, mind you, not doesn’t). A theist got her panties into a huge twist and raised a stink over it. Some peoples’ belief’s are so weak that merely suggesting anything to the contrary will cause them to lose their minds, it seems.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55564
It seems to me that the “probably” is very important in differentiating the thinking process of us non theists which tend to deal with shades of gray as opposed to theists who try to view it in black and white.
However the idea is amazing we need some athiest messages to get out to the world, after all we don’t have the people the fundies have to stand on corners and pass out fictional books.
So I did a little bit more reading and found this in the original article by Ariane Sherine; (this is part of her conversation with someone from the Advertising Standards Authority)
“I then asked her about another unrelated ad: was it okay for Carlsberg to say their lager was “probably the best lager in the world”? She thought so: “We haven’t upheld a complaint against them.”
After that, I Googled Carlsberg and found this marketing site, which suggests that using the word “probably” at the start of the ad saved Carlsberg from litigation.”
It seems to me that avoiding litigation is a good enough reason to use “probably,” then again, do christians ever say you’re probably going to hell or jesus is probably coming back?
As a scientist I do understand the argument of never being completely certain… it is absolutely true that NOTHING is 100% certain. However, for brevity in a university lecture hall the word ‘probably’ is omitted from almost every sentence that the professor utters. Even though technically yes, it should be there. But we don’t need it in the sentence “E is probably equal to mass times the speed of light squared” and I don’t think we need it on the bus.
And yes, religion is completely necessary and it or something like it will always be present. If Christianity didn’t have the world in a choke hold than some other religion would. While we can’t kill religion we can take away the political power and to do that we need to gain an equal footing in the public arena.
Such an ad would certainly be a start.
I think a better slogan is “Religion Got It Wrong.” ‘Nuff Said…
“There is a very small probability that this is all an illusion,…”
How can you determine if the probability of this all being an illusion is very small or very large?
23,400 pounds for a bus ad for two weeks. There’s some seriously gullible atheists in Great Britain. I wonder what they plan on doing with the extra 20,000 pounds.
I think ‘probably’ is the last remnant of the first proposed slogan (’Religion:probably the worst idea in the world’) which was in turn a pun on the Carlsberg ad.
If so, the way the slogan ‘evolved’ as hundreds of folk joined in is also quite apt.
Yes, please substitute ‘almost certainly’ and I’ll subscribe. It’s an ad, so most viewers won’t be impressed by ‘probably’.
Leave no doubt: remove “probably”. (I’ve already signed up).
Why not just state the obvious and leave people to their own conclusions (as they will anyway).
“There is no evidence for God.”
Scott.
Considering that £23400 would buy a lot of food for poor, I would think it would be better to spend it on soup kitchens (or the equivalent there of in Britain) so the poor can be fed. After all as Atheists we are about caring for the fellow human beings without any reward from the imaginary being.
…and then a huge banner can be put outside said soup kitchens with the same slogan (I agree with GEOFF that “probably” should be replaced with “almost certainly”) and get the local news orgs to respond.
i think we should charter a bus with “Fifty-percent of atheists can’t spell (probably)”!
And then, i thought “Now, we’ll have 40% of the ones who are certain they can spell asking for ‘probably’ to be taken off”. Damn!
(And i say this as an atheist, at least i believe i do!—Insert smilie.)
What is the problem with “probably”? I’ll probably donate, that’s all!
The “probably” makes it sound more British. We should go all the way and make it, “There’s probably no God, now stop worrying and have a cup of tea.”.
‘Probably’ is scientifically correct, as a number of commenters already observed. The problem is, however, that any probability greater than zero leaves “Pascal’s wager” intact: if the happiness of afterlife in heaven is infinitely large, then the probability, however small, of a god that will you grant such an afterlife, will make it infinitely advantageous to believe in God over not believing. [The logic of Pascal's Wager is demonstrably false, but the argument would require at least one or two extra buses].
A suitable phrase that keeps the probabilistic aspects of the issue intact and that to my continental ears sounds even more exquisitely British might be: “Don’t bet on God’s existence. Now stop worrying and get on with your life. It’s the only one you have. Live it!”
As has been mentioned before the ‘probably’ is the scientifically correct term as you cannot disprove the existence of gods and there is a very small probability that gods do exist. It is only what are termed ’strong atheists’ that completely refute the existence of gods and their position is as untenable as fundies. I like to tell monotheists that they are almost atheists because they don´t believe in the existence of all gods except one. So they´re nearly there.
I ‘ate you, Butler!
A better wording would be something like “Your God doesn’t exist”. It is provable that the Christian/Jewish God according to the bible and Allah from the Islamic faith are false. That would cover the most popular gods anyway.
Photoshopped!
Atheism is the opposite of Theism. There are only the two. You can bitch whine and moan about this being “Agnostic” but the fact remains, Agnostisism simply a subsect of Atheism. You either believe theres a god or you don’t. If you don’t believe in a god you’re an Atheist whether you like it or not. Atheism defined is not the disbelief in god. It’s the unbelief in god.
Probably does NOT make it an agnostic bus. An agnostic is someone who thinks it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god or not. By saying there is “probably” no god, you’ve left agnosticism because you’ve entertained the possibility of god, and attempted to ascertain whether or not there is one, something an agnostic by definition can’t do. Ironically, saying there is “probably no god” is actually very atheist…an atheist can allow for the possibility of god, they just reject the probability, rejecting the claim that there is one.
@Flip van Tiel:
I actually don’t think saying “probably” makes Pascal’s Wager any more valid. The problem with Pascal’s Wager isn’t that it completely lacks logic. Yes, it probably IS “safer” from a purely rhetorical sense to “believe” in god, if that’s your only reason.
The problem is the way people try to USE it. It gets used in debates about the existence of god. And whether or not it’s somehow a “safer” idea to go ahead and just cover your ass with belief in god, it still has NO bearing whatsoever on how likely it is or the truth of whether or not there is a god.
Another problem is the way “probably” is used in casual speech to show that you aren’t sure or have no idea. In its strictest sense, though, it’s fine. You can say there is “probably” no god because you’ve thought about it, weighed the arguments, taken everything you’ve seen and experienced into account, and allowed for the possibility, but still reject the claim because it isn’t “probable”. I don’t think Pascal’s Wager is strengthened or weakened by it…Pascal’s Wager is a crappy argument either way.
I’m 100% sure there is no god. I promise.
The word probably sucks. The message losses so much with that word. It should just say: “There is no god.” Done.
@MATT
Well said, Matt, and these, your points confirm my suspicion that some extra buses would be required to inform the public at large. I only wanted to warn that using the term ‘probably’ would lead to further use of Pascal’s crappy argument. Hence, my preference for “Don’t bet on God’s existence” (although betting implies probably, the act of placing a bet itself does not).
I CANNOT PROVE THAT THERE IS A GOD - ONLY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ONE.
LIKEWISE
YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT THERE IS NOT A GOD - YOU ONLY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NOT ONE.
SO
WHAT MAKES YOU SMARTER OR MORE RIGHTEOUS THAN ME??? NOTHING.
WE ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN…
People are really in a tizzy about this probably.
I’m an atheist/rationalist myself, but the thing is, don’t we NEED to say “probably”?
I do not believe in a god because I have seen no evidence to suggest that he exists and there would be a high burden of proof for me to accept any claim that a god did exist. On the other hand, the lack of evidence for a god does not technically support the idea that there MUST not be a god. The issue is simply that there is no reason to believe in such a thing without good evidence - is this not what we most detest about Christianity, that they are willing to accept their philosophy in the absence of evidence?
Please, do not let us become similarly dogmatic by asserting that the non-existence of a god is somehow self-evident. To say that “there is certainly no god(s)” requires an equally high burden of proof. As a rationalist, if someone could at some point present me with irrevocable evidence that there is a god, I would have no choice but to come to the logical conclusion that god exists, given the evidence that I was presented with. Do I think this is likely to happen? Absolutely not, and I am so confident that I would bet all that I own that no one will ever present me with evidence of god.
A common, if facile argument, is to say that the assertion of the existence of a god is a positive statement which requires proof whereas the assertion of a completely naturalistic universe is a negative and thus essentially unassailable position (”you can’t prove a negative”), but both are simply positive explanations of a set of physical behaviors (namely, physics) that we cannot explain.
For all intents and purposes, I am an atheist, but technically, I suppose I am an agnostic - I operate on the evidence that I am given. Once we stop operating on the basis of tangible, physical evidence, we have lost the intellectual high ground.
@ R&R
First off, you’re the sole commentor to have typed in only caps; congratulations on simultaneously getting everyone’s attention and looking like a snob.
Second off, nobody’s accusing you (and other Theists) of being stupider or less intelligent than anybody else (Atheists). For all we know, you could be a rocket scientist and a brilliant Christian; I’m a high school student and an uneasy Agnostic. All we’re saying is that there’s a chance that you’re wrong.
Third off, the coin is more like a D20; a multi-sided dice. You, sir, appear to have forgotten about the other sects of Christianity, about Hinduism, about Judaism, about Buddhism, about Zoroastrianism, about Islam, about Baha’i, about Shintoism, about Greek mythology, about African mythology, and about hundreds of other religions that exist on our Earth.
Fourth off, if you’d like to talk with me further, I’d gladly invite you to. I haven’t read the Bible (and then again I haven’t read many other books), but it isn’t about that.
Fifth and finally, have a nice day.
– and oh yeah! Go for the bus ad!
Is this about the outraged squeals of the offended, or what? I mean really, what’s it about?
I say if you’re true atheists get rid of the probably but religionists are so touchy it may be better to leave it in.
I know I know, ‘why should we when they spout on about how we should all believe in God’ but you don’t want to end up doing the same now do you?
So yeh, keep the probably! I’m also wondering why you’re all so fussed about it…I mean, believe what you like and let them do the same? You wont change anyone’s mind by leaving mildly offensive messages on buses so why spend your money on it?
Sorry to be a stickler but…y’know, it’s a little unnecessary…
I think the ad is entertaining and people shouldn’t take it too seriously. If someone is offended by it they should lighten up and be more secure in their beliefs. I don’t think the ad is about converting or being 100% atheist. It seems like it’s about giving a good laugh and a smile to those who agree with the ad, and pissing off the intolerant.
P.S. I’m agnostic and the God ads don’t offend me or annoy me. I don’t really give them much though. I’m guessing a theist who is comfortable with their beliefs would feel the same about these ads.
and… isn’t “almost certainly” basically the same thing as saying “probably”? They’re kind of synonyms.
Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone.
It’s worth to donate.But I suggest clear and sharp message.
God created man/False.
Man created God/True.
God is human imagination.
Hey, let me just rephrase the first guy to comment about ‘probably’ so I sound like a hard core non-believer. Because repeating the same thing over and over proves how much I don’t believe in God.
Folks, there is only God. No you or me or Other. Just God. And God is love.
4,680 atheists to contribute £5 each = £23,400 = US$47,032 for two weeks = $1,175,800 per year to put an ad on ONE bendy bus!?!? I am going to buy a bus and just drive it around all year displaying ads.
I have to say, atheism as I interpret it (the denial of God’s possible existance) requires the same blind faith Islam or Christianity does.
That being said, I don’t believe in God
Pray to me not something that doesn’t exist and I will give you what you want if it involves Sex..
we have that same billboard here in denver. in fact, they are appearing all over the US, there have been those signs in philly, atlanta, and a few others. it is all from 1 orginization, actually based here in my home city.
If The God does not exist, how do you explain cups and santa? they didn’t just invent themselves, you know.
I writ a book about you, so watch out.
I writ a book about YOU. It am called a bible because i am called God.
It is a PROVEN fact that atheists are only so anti God because they fancy God. It scares you when you get excited picturing him in a dress.
You know what i find interesting about this venture? You bitch and moan and cant decide whether God probably doesn’t exist or He emphatically doesn’t exist and then you cant even find 4680 of you to donate 5 pounds each! If this were a christian venture, christians would be donating entire salaries to get an advertising campaign on the road! Put your money where your atheistic mouth is at! At least christian’s beliefs affect their hip pocket!
Thanks for putting my post on.
You atheists are alright.
I will now watch the Olympics.
Yeah, remove the offending P word and I’ll pay £10 a month.
Is Reg Varney in ‘Atheism on the Buses’? cos he’s the devil. Jack the teeth got out when the goin was good. or should i say ‘god’ ahahahahahahahahahaha! I’m like that ned sherrin, me.
saying probably doesnt make it an agnostic sign. if you deny the possibility of a higher power your a fool. Even Richard Dawkins has said its just highly unlikely, not impossible.
Bunch of whiners, can’t you just accept that this is a step in the right direction? You can’t just expect people to accept ‘God DOESN’T exist’ plastered in public places. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and religion destroyed it, too.
@Uhhhhhh
“Agnostisism simply a subsect of Atheism”.
That’s not strictly true. I’m an agnostic theist.
No, that’s not a typo.
I just feel sorry for all the people who dont live in reality, a normal human by now, should have to see something to believe it, you all just go with what you feel, and pitty them , we will never change whats been started so just live your life out being nice, and try to find one of us,(someone whos got his/her head screwed on,and maybe have a chat about what could have been,dont get into any arguments about gods, theres no point,you know who you are ,your right at the top of the evolutionary chain ….
To all those who want to include the word ‘probably’ I’d like to ask - do you assiduously include the word ‘probably’ when you deny the existence of Santa, the tooth fairy, the bogeyman….etc? If not then you are at least intellectually dishonest, and in all probability kowtowing to the religious bullies who insist on special rights for their belief system(s).
Cue the muslims getting offended.
Oh how proundly foolish is the person who professes atheism. By definistion a person cannot even be an atheist. Does the atheist posses all knowledge? No. Can he then state unequivocally that there is sufficient evidence to prove that there is no God? No, he cannot. He cannot because he does not know everything. He is simply an agnostic.
This foolishness is compounded with the running of various campaigns that aim to advance the beliefs of atheism. Religion is not to blame for the vast oppresion and attack against freedom that is advancing in the world today. Why then are people so terrified that they feel the existence of God must be attacked. Could it be that they feel threatened where it hurts most -
*proundly*? *definistion*? And you, Mr Hughes, have the temerity to call atheists foolish!
Leaving aside the typos, what could be more foolish than your statement that *Religion is not to blame for the vast oppresion and attack against freedom that is advancing in the world today* when all the evidence is to the contrary. Why, only this week a British woman was shot dead in Afghanistan for *spreading Christianity*, and that same benighted Islamic country a young man was jailed for 20 years for the *blasphemy* of downloading women’s rights info from the internet?
What planet are you on?
It would be far more dismissive and effective if it were to read “More than probably there are no gods. So stop worrying…”.
This way of pithily downsizing deity - likening the one to the usually more vigorously dismissed many (Odin, Wakanda, et al) - is an often-missed trick that should always be kept in mind. Just a little less effective on Hindus, I would imagine!
_____
Why not, “GOD JUST DIED, SO GET
ON WITH YOUR LIFE”
This should appease the believers
and the no-believers. It simply states that there used to be a god,
(for the believers) the fact that he just died. (fits with way a lot of non believers think) I mean god/he/she, has not been seen lately or ever so
it will be fair to both sides.
“…probably no god” sounds like a fallible inductive argument because we haven’t found any evidence (as if that were possible). Since there might not be a single demonstrative argument for the non-existence of a god, why not pit believers against each other and say, “billions of people disbelieve the god that you do believe in”, and give believers a little perspective in the process.
Own goal! I think the atheists will score more for the “other side”. The best way to get people not to believe in God is just to ignore him! This way makes people think and many will realise it takes a lot more faith to jettison God than it does to believe in him. You could only say ‘probably’ ‘cos at the end of the day you can’t prove He’s not there!
Hi Marcus
Apologies for the typos, I was rather rushed the other day.
You state that on the basis that a Christian woman was killed we can deduce that religion is to blame for an attack on freedom?? I am from planet earth (to answer your question) and I know enough about people and human history to know that the greatest atrocities that have occurred in this world have occurred independent of religion. Secular humanists like Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot and Stalin have brought about a far greater evil than religion ever has.
Hi Rob Hughes, typos are forgiven, but I find your statement *I know enough about people and human history to know that the greatest atrocities that have occurred in this world have occurred independent of religion. Secular humanists like Hitler … have brought about a far greater evil than religion ever has.*
All I can say is that your knowledge of human history is nothing short of lamentable if you believe Hitler was an atheist
Adolf Hitler was baptised in a Catholic Church in 1889 and was never be excommunicated or in any other way officially censured by the Catholic Church.
Hitler frequently referred to God and Christianity in his various speeches and writings.
In one 1933 speech, he said that *To do justice to God and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the German Volk.*
In another he said: *We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.*
In a 1922 speech, he said: *My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.*
Some atheist, huh?
See http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/HitlerAtheist.htm
Well said, Marcus.
The funny thing is, Rob Hughes didn’t actually call Hitler and atheist. He called him a “secular humanist”, which is even more ignorant.
Its the discrete human self that probably doesnt exist.. “we are such things as dreams are made of” .. oh and you simply have to translate these buses into arabic, hebrew etc too.. it’s only fair guys..
Have you all seen how much has been raised in a few days, in excess of £110,000. Brilliant
4 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Godless advertising…
Hello, Seattle! Look what just went up on Denny, near the Stewart Street intersection: Everyone might want to donate to this cause, too: a group is trying to buy ad space on London buses, saying “There’s probably no God. Now……
[...] have joined the effort, posting about Ariane’s charming and original idea. An article in The Freethinker has even been taken up on Richard Dawkins’s website. We have some way to go before we manage [...]
[...] the campaign was first mooted back in June, The Freethinker helped raise awareness with an article which was picked up by richarddawkins.net and Pharyngula. We are delighted to see it taking off so [...]
[...] an appeal was recently relaunched for funds to put an atheist message on London buses, Christian Voice’s cretinous Stephen “Birdshit” Green commented: Apparently, an atheist [...]
Post a Comment