A few months ago, some atheists failed to raise enough money to put ads on London buses with the message: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life." Now they have the money to go ahead with the ad campaign.

[So is there no God? Or is there probably no God? There is a difference you know.]

The intent was/is to counter the Christian ads. Have you noticed that some people seem find the Christian ads or the general Christian 'view' threatening? That's odd: if you are an atheist, as in someone who does not believe there is a God, then why would you feel threatened? Why would you care? - after all, there is probably no God. But wait, it's not that simple, you do feel threatened and you are scared and worried. So instead of considering the possibilities and examining why you are bothered by this, let's wilfully hold onto that which probably reassures your own atheistic views. The words 'denial' and 'self-delusional' and 'self-administered brainwashing' probably comes to mind.

Probably not surprisingly, Richard is involved and has once again probably enlightened us with his words of wisdom:

"This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion."

Anathemas are hurled at something by the pope as opposed to something being an anathema to religion - but dismissing that and reading it as most people will probably read it, I have to admit I don't remember any true pope having pronounced anathemas at those who think or promote thinking or thinking as an act. (I cannot speak for other religions.) In any case, how does the message "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life" make people think anyway?

So you want to think whether there is probably no God? After all, it's only probable and therefore there is a degree of uncertainty. To those who think they know there is no God, that's another topic. Let's assume you are uncertain and that you probably don't want to continue to delude yourself and probably want to think. Consider the following argument, which is essentially Pascal's Wager. There are two possible bets to make: there is a God or there is no God. For those two bets, each have two possible outcomes, either there is a God or there is no God. Thus there are four permutations and they are listed below.

1. Your bet: there is no God. Outcome: there is no God. You are correct but since there is no God, there is no one to reward you. You are right but so what?
2. Your bet: there is a God. Outcome: there is no God. You are incorrect but since there is no God, there is no one to punish you. You are wrong but who cares? You miss out on nothing.
3. Your bet: there is no God. Outcome: there is a God. You are incorrect and there is a God to punish you if you are obstinate, in which case you are stuffed, eternally I might add.
4. Your bet: there is a God. Outcome: there is a God. You are correct and there is a God to reward you.

Given the above, anyone not in denial would probably have to admit that betting God exists is the only sensible option. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. But then again, some people are probably in denial and would probably rather continue living as if God only probably does not exist.