The ‘probably’ word
16.12.09 | simon | 
Email This Post
Due to questioning of the use of ‘probably’ in the slogan, we thought it wise to write a blog post to explain the idea further. The use of ‘probably’ is a strength of the campaign. No one can say for certain that any gods exist or don’t exist – that would require blind faith.
You can’t disprove unicorns, the tooth fairy, Zeus, or any gods but what you can say is that there is no solid evidence to think they exist. This campaign uses ‘probably’ to say that although you can’t disprove things like unicorns and fairies, you can say there’s not a shred of evidence for the thousands of gods that humans have ever worshipped.
Atheism is a positive statement about the limits of knowledge. Rather than taking a religious-like leap of faith and saying that there definitely is a god or definitely isn’t a god, atheists just say that there’s as much evidence for the Christian God as there is for Zeus or any other supernatural thing. That is, zilch.
Theists on the other hand think they know the one true god out of the literally thousands that have ‘existed’. And, in fact, they often refer to this god as their Personal God – one personal god for everyone. This is interesting as a recent study has shown that peoples’ own personal beliefs tend to align very well with what they think God thinks. Of course there’s no reason to think that God exists in anything more than a person’s imagination.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Well said. i don’t know why people are so hung up on one word. The idea is to get people to think.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
It’s funny how a lot of religious types fixate on that word as if it somehow a sign of weakness in Atheistic [rational] arguments.
Of course, it’s the entire point!
December 16th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
The word “probably” is the key word in the slogan that opens up discussion.
Leaving “probably” out would tend to close intelligent discussion down by making the message appear excessively dogmatic and confrontational.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I completely understand the rationale behind it, but at face value, most uninformed people interpret it as an agnostic stance. Perhaps a better slogan might be “There’s absolutely no evidence for any god…” etc.
I’m also not too keen on the “you can be good without god” line – “being good” isn’t necessarily what motivates people to become religious.
Anyhow, other common criticisms in the media are “Wouldn’t all that money be better donated to a charity?” and “This is just proselytising, so atheism is really no different than any other cult”.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Just wanted to highlight a couple of things.
1. It should be noted that the ‘There’s probably no god’ campaign was a direct response to a Christain Ad that ran on buses in the UK. Therefore, the choice of words in the slogan made more sense in that given scenario. I think taking it out of that context makes the slogan weaker and doesn’t quite get the intended message across. ( http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign )
2. Also, initially, the slogan did not have the word ‘probably’. It was only added because the UK Committee of Advertising Practice advised so.
The whole point of this initiative is to get people to think critically about religion. And I don’t think ‘probably is no god’ slogan quite achieves that in this case.
Think this one’s excellent “I prefer to reason rather than believe. That’s why I’m an atheist!”. It was done in Italy. More info here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4588
Just thought I’d make some suggestions which I think would benefit this initiative as I support it and am also a donor.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I think ‘almost certainly’ would be better than probably.
However the idea is correct and it seems to be effective in other countries. Plus probably fits better on the banner.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I like Dawkins response at the launch of the UK campaign: He would have preferred that the ‘probably’ were omitted, but it would lose scientific integrity to do so.
As for giving money to charity and proselytising: people donated the money for bus adverts – it was up to those individual people what they do with their money and they chose bus adverts; and it would be proselytising if we were to go door to door or stand on the street handing out fliers about how silly they all are – not just saying “stop worrying.”
December 16th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
@Shama The probably has in fact encouraged discussion because it is a contentious point. Sure, “almost certainly” is more accurate, but that doesn’t work so well as a slogan on the side of a bus – it is not catchy enough.
There will always be arguments against, and problems with, any slogan. It is after all, just that, a slogan. The meaning and intent behind the slogan is always more important.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
If the slogan is meant to mean “there is no evidence for any God” then this is either ignorance or deceit. It is also a philosophical statement, and if it is to be held as rational needs justification. That burden is a great one, as there are a great many arguments (which could as good evidence) for Theism.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
I don’t see how “there is no evidence for any God” is ignorant or deceitful; or a philosophical statement. It’s simply a statement of fact.
And I don’t think “arguments” qualify as evidence either, although I guess it depends on your definition of the word.
I’m now coming around to liking the “probably” wording. There’s merit in having a consistent slogan in many countries. Politicians know this only too well.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:51 am
@Stuart There is comprehensive evidence AGAINST the existence of any supernatural deity, exactly the same as there is comprehensive evidence against the existence of fairies. One can come to this rational conclusion by science, reason and logic.
That’s why it requires blind faith to believe in a supernatural being as all reason tells you it doesn’t make sense. Such as, a virgin giving birth
December 17th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Like so:
http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/232/religionkv0.png
December 17th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
@Hamish Brilliant! Love it!
December 17th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
@Stuart
“If the slogan is meant to mean “there is no evidence for any God” then this is either ignorance or deceit.”
I am glad you are going to tell us what that evidence is. I await your response, but I am not holding my breath.
“…there are a great many arguments (which could as good evidence) for Theism.”
Go on – put ‘em up. Let’s see what you’ve got.
December 17th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Hi Great article,
I wanted to know if anyone has seen the movie the ‘Zeitgeist’? I think this is one of the most factual presentataions on religion and institution of religion itself.
This is the movie that made me question my beliefs, and start to critically analyse why people believe things that are obviously not true.
I recomend this movie to anyone and may be worth posting on the site. you can watch it online if you google ‘Zeitgeist’
December 17th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
You can’t prove joy, anger or sadness exist either, but we know they do…
The scientific attitude doesn’t apply to 2/3rds of human life. There’s a really good book about this-
A Guide for the Perplexed by E.P.F. Schumacher
December 17th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Nah, Zeitgeist is all shite, Better to research the deities yourself. There were similarities with the deities but no where near to the extent that the Zeitgeist movie portrays, which portrays blatant lies.
December 17th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
@Chris
Zeitgeist has a segment which is based on the ‘Jesus Myth Hypothesis’. So while I enjoyed the movie myself, you can’t call it a “factual presentation” in any sense.
It also presents the way in which the US is run by the bankers. And how 9/11 didn’t happen the way the consensus view holds it happened.
So again, it’s an interesting movie presented as a documentary, but it reeks of conspiracy and paranoia and the sequel ‘Zeitgeist 2′ reeks even more so.
December 17th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
@Jordan Grantham
We know joy, anger and sadness exist do we? Like to clarify that a bit?
December 17th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
@Jordan Grantham
“You can’t prove joy, anger or sadness exist either, but we know they do…”
LOL. That has to be the most brain-dead argument for the existence of gods I have ever heard.
It is completely wrong on multiple levels.
You fail.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
So, Simon, you must be a bit miffed that St Matthews has stolen the headlines with their dubious “dissatisfied Mary” billboard.
December 17th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
@Hamish hehe nah, they’re doing just fine revealing the issues with religion by themselves
December 17th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
What upsets me is the way in which the uneductaed dismiss something they have not taken the time to learn about, or, have been previously mislead about. Its more sane to say god possibly exists than he doesnt, take a look at the deep blue sky and the wonderfull birds that fly around, do you suppose it all just happened to be conicidentally?
December 17th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
i think the aproach that zeitgeist took was brilliant,taking all the paranormal info and turning it around the way it did was the best ive seen or heard yet,
hitchhikers guid to the galaxy did it with god,and he disappeared in a puff of logic,
im with this movement god has been an imaginary friend and foe far to long,
December 18th, 2009 at 5:42 am
re: ‘probably’ – suggest you more correctly change your name to the NZ Agnostic Bus Campaign and rather than chide others with your sanctimonious envy perhaps you might live and enjoy your own life.
December 18th, 2009 at 7:37 am
@Cameron James
re your comment
” Its more sane to say god possibly exists than he doesnt”
No its not!!!,
Thats saying the theory of ‘ta da’ is perfectly acceptable yet science isn’t.
As part of your claim for sanity, do we count the talking serpent as well in the garden of Eden? I wish my pets could talk!!!’
December 18th, 2009 at 9:13 am
@Cameron James
“What upsets me is the way in which the uneductaed dismiss something…”
I think the way you spell uneducated tells us everything we need to know about your argument.
Fail
December 18th, 2009 at 9:16 am
More crimes perpetuated in His name:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10616286
“An 80-year-old Taranaki man who assaulted a child with a plastic alkathene pipe said he believed he was following the Bible.”
Great forgiveness and tolerance Christians. Way to go.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:28 am
And what about the moron who thought it was ok to break the law and deface this Church’s controversial billboard : http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10616253
The problem in all societies today is that religious people think they have the right to commit crimes if anyone offends their beliefs. And they commit horrible acts because of this, such as the Danish newspaper saga.
To me, defacing that billboard falls in that same category.
We have a sacred humanist right to freedom of speech. And this should always be respected and protected.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:34 am
I think it’s kinda funny given the arguement of why you have used the word probably when the campaign is labelled “atheist”
there is no probably in atheism.
i think you might want to rethink the name to be “NZAgnosticCampaign” if those truely are your beliefs.
dictionary.com offers these definitions:
a⋅the⋅ism
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
ag·nos·ti·cism
n.
1.The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2.The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
i don’t know about you but based on this post you sound rather more like an agnostic than an theist.
in fact, i think atheists may be a little offended.