Brahman is known to one who thinks it is unknowable and not known to one who thinks he knows.

– Kena Upanishad, ca. 500 BCE

Got any good arguments against deism? The only one I know of is Occam’s Razor, and that doesn’t shave especially close and still leaves us with a “probably”.

Well, I’ll agree it still leaves the potential for an “absentee landlord” sort of deity, but I think Occam’s Razor (combined with Carl Sagan’s invisible dragon, for variation) is as much of a response as you need. A god that does nothing, shows no sign of his existence, answers no prayers and takes no interest in his creation is so pointless as to be unworthy of the name “God”. You may as well believe in Bertrand Russell’s interstellar teapot as in this deity, since it makes no difference to anything either way. I would contend, though, that since for all intents and purposes the deistic god does not exist, you can still dispense with the “probably”.

The only way around it, as far as I can see, is to redefine God as something like “unconditional love”, or “hope”, or “peace”. Go down that road and I’ll grant you all the “probablys” you like. If you choose this path, though, your god is arguably no longer a god, and you’re just talking semantics.

Mind you, I guess that’s all this boils down to really…

Saying ‘probably’ does not mean that the people it represents don’t have a 100% definite idea of their beliefs, it just means they are tolerant of each other and other people’s beliefs.

Atheists will be misunderstood either way.

Yes, I sometimes think we’re wilfully misunderstood!

I also think there’s room (and budget by the look of it) to do a follow-up campaign saying why we don’t believe in particular gods. Short, snappy arguments that make people think.

For example, I saw an Alpha Course poster recently asking what you’d ask God if you had one question. The first thing which came into my head was, “Where were you when the 2004 tsunami struck?”

It’s only a short step from, “There’s probably no god” to, “There just might be something in this god idea”, and once you get to that point you’ve crossed the line into arguing in favour of theism.

If the majority of the population believed that there was no god and you said, “There’s probably no god”, then yes, you’d be positioning yourself on the theist side of the majority. If you said, “The Earth is probably round”, then the probably would be the most significant part of the message, because it puts doubt into a subject where little or no doubt existed.

That’s not the case here. I think everyone who sees this advert will understand its meaning. The existence of god(s) is less likely than most of you/us think.

If you redefine God enough, then perhaps the “probably” makes sense,

Perhaps? Where’s your certainty, lad? ;-)

Got any good arguments against deism? The only one I know of is Occam’s Razor, and that doesn’t shave especially close and still leaves us with a “probably”.

The point is that atheists don’t just disbelieve in a particular conception of God, but all gods. Saying, “The existence of Yahweh can be disproved by contradiction” would only get theists responding, “Well obviously I don’t believe in that primitive conception of God.” or “Well, that’s a nice proof, but God might be different from that.”

To me it seems more skeptical and scientific to say “Probably”. From there on the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Likewise with deities, there are some arguments which aim to derive a contradiction on the assumption that there exists a god with certain features.

Quite right, and I said as much:

You can however often disprove specific religious claims – for example geocentrism or an omnipotent deity who doesn’t allow lightning.

An omnipotent God who wants us all to be aware of his existence is another.

Most gods are self-contradictory, but I don’t think it’s as simple as contradictions in terms like “married bachelors” or “square circles”.

The point of this is to say that “probably” will be likely by taken by some to imply that atheists have a nagging doubt about the existence of a god because they are biased to think that such a god exists (just as my companion was biased toward thinking vegan cookies are bad). As you point out though, leaving “probably” out implies, to some theists at least, absolute certainty. Atheists will be misunderstood either way.

In the end, I think that leaving “probably” in was the best choice if only because it is more likely to be latched upon by people who already have some doubt. “Probably no god” is safer than “no god” to someone on the edge.