There’s Probably No [Insert Your Own Example Here]

February 19, 2010 By Guest Contributor 25 Comments

It would be terrific if the Atheist Bus Campaign ads could just be applied to everything else as pseudoscientific and ridiculous…

(via Science, Reason and Critical Thinking)

Filed Under: Atheist Advertising, General, Pseudoscience 25 Comments
  • yhj

    NO WORKING HOMEOPATHY

    bit long but yeah, first thing that came to mind, maybe just:

    NO HOMEOPATHY

  • littlejohn

    No “Big Foot”? Have you seen my shoes?

  • Reginald Selkirk
  • http://religiouscomics.net Jeff P

    No if we can only get animated gif images on the side of buses!

    I guess those “hologram” things would work were the image changes with viewing angle.

  • Autumnal Harvest

    Voodoo is a set of religion, and it does exist, so saying that there’s “no voodoo” is like saying there’s “no atheism,” or “no Catholicism.”

    By the same token, I’m pretty sure that there are “fortune tellers” – just not accurate ones.

    I should probably stop worrying about inaccurate wording on posters and enjoy my life. :)

  • Tony

    I’m proper stealing this gif!

  • Ron in Houston

    No Big Foot? You guys are crazy. In case you haven’t noticed my avatar is the foil hat I wear to keep the government from stealing my thoughtts.

  • Derek

    No if we can only get animated gif images on the side of buses!

    I don’t think that’s very far off at all…or at least something that works similarly.

    On a different note I must admit the campaign took me by complete surprise as a Christian, an atheist campaign that states that there is probably no God? See that wasn’t so hard was it? … baby steps. ;-)

    Cheers and Excelsior!

    PS Thanks for the Cryptid Alert Reginald, that was pure awesome sauce…and explains a lot. =D

  • thatch3d

    There is probably no Star Trek style teleportation device. Now stop worrying and enjoy your ride on this bus.

  • stephanie

    No Easter Bunny?
    ::sniff::

    I suppose that’s fair as long as there’s still Easter chocolate bunnies…

  • http://littlelioness.net Fiona

    Not being able to have chocolate this year for easter, I no longer care that there’s not easter bunny. Last year was a different story.

  • schnauzermom

    Wouldn’t this be great on one of those big LED signs? I’d contribute to funding for that!

  • Richard P

    “an atheist campaign that states that there is probably no God? See that wasn’t so hard was it? … baby steps.”

    I don’t get your fluff in a knot. The sign was to say there is no god, but the advertising company would not allow so confrontational a message. The group caved and changed the wording.

    Make no mistake, there is no doubt on our end.

    how about:

    No Truth in Religion

  • ckitching

    Make no mistake, there is no doubt on our end.

    I don’t think you’re right about this. There are plenty of ‘weak’ atheists, who can’t completely rule out the possibility of a non-interventionist god, in these organizations, too. The Christian god is easier to rule out because the bible makes a lot of claims about the world that can be tested for factuality.

  • Derek

    I don’t get your fluff in a knot.

    What?

    Geez, I just found the sign funny coming from an atheist organization. I wasn’t really trying to make a religious sort of attack, victory dance, or some other equally ridiculous action. My comment was meant to be a joke. That’s why I added the little wink emoticon … which I note that you didn’t copy down in the quotation of my comment. My mistake for thinking it would be recognized for what it was.

    Cheers and Excelsior!

    PS Incidentally, “No Truth In Religion” wouldn’t actually be true, not matter what your belief system. There seem to be some evidences of truths present in most every set of beliefs. How about something more like “Religion Lacks Sufficient Evidence” or “Religion: Causing Conflict Since Humans Started It”

  • Cafeeine

    “Geez, I just found the sign funny coming from an atheist organization. I wasn’t really trying to make a religious sort of attack, victory dance, or some other equally ridiculous action.”

    Although perhaps unintentional, you come at the heels of others who have used similar comments and tone as attacks and silly responses in earnest.

    One of the points that I see theists often misattribute to atheists is a dogmatic denial of the existence of gods. It is the difference between these two statements:

    A: “All of the evidence I have seen points to no gods existing”
    B: “No evidence could ever point to gods existing”

    I can be confident saying ‘god does not exist’ and ‘god probably does not exist’ interchangeably based on (A) without ever adhering to (B),

  • Laurent

    Arguing with 9/11 conspiracy theorists probably has to be the most frustrating thing in the world.

  • Derek

    I understand it Cafeeine. It just caught me a little off guard. I don’t have any sort of history on this site as being antagonistic or self-righteous, that I’m aware of. Perhaps it was an error to assume that I would be able to joke around as I do with my friends who are atheists. I’ll try to be a little more careful in the future.

    And I have understood the difference between A and B for quite sometime. Though in my experience many atheists wouldn’t touch that “probably”… which is why I found the sign amusing. Again, my apologies.

    Cheers and Excelsior!

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Ron in Houston: In case you haven’t noticed my avatar is the foil hat I wear…

    That is so retro. Foil is out, Velostat is in.

  • MH

    Reginald Selkirk, that website is a riot. Plus their claims are accurate, people wearing velostat hats are not kidnapped by aliens!

  • magetoo

    Derek: Don’t let a single negative comment from the humor impaired change what you do. Plenty of others got the joke, I’m sure, and didn’t see the need to rush to post comments…

  • muggle

    Derek, I’ve enjoyed having you here and as one of those stubborn Atheists who refuse to modify there is no God with probably, please stay. I like your posts.

    Now, I suggest we all stop worrying about semantics and enjoy our lives.

  • Richard P

    Derek:

    I apologize for my comment. It was done as a quick response to the accusation made by many of the religious. I did not mean it to be offensive to you. I realize I could have left the knot part out and it would have said the same thing.

    I will admit to not looking at who had made the comment. Please, don’t feel it was directed at you personally.

    I don’t believe that weak atheism is a product of unsure disbelief in a god. From my experience weak atheism is more a doubt in ourselves, than doubt in a non-existence of god.
    I consider myself a strong atheist but I still leave room for a Super being existing. This doubt is only natural if we are to question everything. Albeit very little room.

  • Derek

    Thanks Magetoo and Muggle, I hadn’t planned on leaving. Though think I’ll put a little more thought into my posts.

    And no worries Richard, I didn’t really find the comment offensive or anything like that…just surprising. It’s all good, but still, thanks for your clarifying response/apology…I do appreciate it. =)

    Lastly, and perhaps most of all, thank you Reginald for introducing me to Velostat. I, for one, feel much safer.

    Cheers and Excelsior!

  • keddaw

    The more you hear about what governments and big business get up to the more you realise that, on the balance of probabilities, there is a conspiracy.

    Maybe not on 9/11, but there is a conspiracy out there to have corporate and government interests trump the rights of an individual.