If the goal of the advertisers is to communicate with people, amuse them, and strike a contrast with the church ads, yes.
If people aren’t worrying the ad doesn’t reach them, though the ad implies that they are, which is insulting, so that’s bad. If people are worried then IME telling a worrier not to worry never works, and given that as you say the ad suggests that even atheists think there’s a real possibility there are gods, the logical thing for them to do might be to believe in a god to take care of their worries. The only people who are going to think it is funny is atheists ie it is preaching to the choir. It’s a cheap ineffective jab at the religious to gain cheap yucks for atheists. If the goal of the advertisers is to communicate with people and amuse them, it’s commucating with and amusing those who don’t need the message, and alienating and failing to amuse those who do.
I thought it was funny and I’m a hardcore agnostic. I thought it was funny, as very rarely does someone express something so close to my own opinion in this subject (in a normal language sense, that is. For varying definitions of “isn’t”, “probably”, and “god” the possibilities vary.)
You’re parsing the thing way too closely. The campaign was started by a comedy writer, and it’s supposed to be a humorous rejoinder to religious advertising on buses. It’s a joke.
Even stupid atheists don’t buy into Pascal’s Wager these days.
Wait- which is which?
Of course it’s preaching to the choir. I mean, you wouldn’t expect any slogan on the side of a bus to get people to seriously call their faith into question, would you? It’s there, at best, to show presence, and a reaction to similar religion-related advertisements.
If you don’t know, dude, I’m not going to tell you.
Gee, I wonder why some theists think we atheists are dogmatic. Until we can prove there is no god, we can’t deny it is possible, if not probable. I suspect that for a lot of theists the possibility there is no god, or even probable, is shocking.
Nice. But the “probably” angle rubs me wrong, too.
There’s a missing link in my own devout athiesm. I have to admit that there isn’t evidence sufficient to rule out a god in the sense of precise logical argument, although the idea’s obviously laughable. I think Dawkins refers to this as a level 6.99999 disbelief or something like that, stressing that the room for the other side of the argument is vanishingly, uselessly small. But if the god being considered is one of those jealous types that will throw us into hell for eternity, that seems like an infinite downside, so against any finite upside the wager screws us. Why don’t I need an infinitely small opposing probability to justify athiesm? I dunno, but I’m still athiest.
If you said there’s probably no cheese in the fridge I’d still go check the fridge but you can’t just go to the fridge to check to see if you have some fresh God.
Zuul, maybe.
Bravo! 
…if you could express ship me the new monitor I’d appreciate it
Cuz there’s an infinite number of possible deities that’d throw you into eternal hellfire if you didn’t follow your reason and logic, even if that means arriving at atheism (or any other stipulation you care to insert). 
Fred Edwords wrote briefly about this in the most recent issue of the Humanist.
I thought the ‘probably’ was a nod to the famous Carlsberg slogan.
Actually the more definitive statements, such as “there is no god…” make me uncomfortable. And they make Dawkins uncomfortable too. In The God Delusion he has a whole chapter devoted to this idea I think. He describes the probability as extremely small, but never regards it as a fact.
I’m disappointed a similar campaign won’t be running in Australia. The article says that Australian atheists were refused permission but it doesn’t say who by. I’d be very interested to learn if it was the media company or the Advertising Standards Bureau.
Believers make pretty definitive “God exists” statements all the time. I fail to see how the statement “There is no God” is any more misleading than “God wants to save you.”
Heh, I’d prefer “There’s probably no God. Now start worrying”. 
Considering that a large number of people buy into the God mythology for personal comfort, the notion that there is no God = less worry isn’t really a seller.
Didn’t Homer Simpson use this logic with the final word of “If I’m wrong I’ll recant on my deathbed and be saved?”
I’m not sure what a “hardcore” agnostic is. But if I’m guessing right, you are effectively part of the choir that is being preached to.
No. My initial reaction was simply one based on the overall feel of the statement, without any attempt to parse closely at all. It was also a reaction based on years and years of debating religious people and knowing their gut reaction to these sorts of statements. My detailed subsequent parsing is just required because you are trying to deny that my initial reaction has a basis.
Yes it is. It’s the type of joke that Shodan makes. He and like minded people snigger, everyone who disagrees with his views is turned off. Brilliant.
So? Are you agreeing with me that the ad is just a snide joke for atheists? If not, what do atheists (even stupid ones) have to do with it?
I understand this. I’m not suggesting that the ad should have said that there were no gods. I’m suggesting that it is a rhetorical reality that absolute statements sound arrogant and dogmatic, while statements qualified by the word “probably” sound wishy washy and read as confirmation that the contrary is a substantial if small possibility. Yet most atheists agree that while a god or gods cannot logically be ruled out as a possibility, the prospect of there being any is so vanishingly unlikely as to be all but non-existent. It’s not possible to convey this in a slogan. They should have used some other slogan altogether.
This has already been dealt with. It was the media company being pissweak, and no doubt not wishing to annoy anyone.