Atman,
The 'probably no God' thing came about for the bus signage because ...

>> " ..the word ‘probably’ helps to ensure that our ads will not breach any advertising codes. The Committee of Advertising Practice advised the campaign that "the inclusion of the word 'probably' makes it less likely to cause offence, and therefore be in breach of the Advertising Code."

"Ariane Sherine has said:

"There's another reason I'm keen on the "probably": it means the slogan is more accurate, as even though there's no scientific evidence at all for God's existence, it's also impossible to prove that God doesn't exist (or that anything doesn't). As Richard Dawkins states in The God Delusion, saying "there's no God" is taking a "faith" position. He writes: "Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist". His choice of words in the book is "almost certainly"; but while this is closer to what most atheists believe, "probably" is shorter and catchier, which is helpful for advertising. I also think the word is more lighthearted, and somehow makes the message more positive."

from - http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign - below "More of your frequently asked questions"

in 2009, The Christian Party’s ‘There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life’ became the [UK's] most complained-about non-broadcast ad ever, attracting 1,204 complaints
http://www.asa.org.uk/Regulation-Explained/History-of-Ad-Regulation.aspx
...................................................................
Most atheists simply "lack belief in god/s"

Dawkins became more outspoken after Sept 11, 2001 -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/15/september11.politicsphilosophyandsociety1
.

Firstly Madeleine I hope you can ignore all the patronising remarks about your age. There is still a lot of discrimination against young people, which I think is mainly a legacy of past cultures, but really, there's no reason why your opinion should be any less valuable than anyone else's. I don't presume to understand what goes on inside your head, and nobody else should either.

I agree with previous commentators who point out that Richard Dawkins shouldn't be considered as some kind of spokesperson for atheism. From my scant perusing of his book and having seen him on TV a few times, my impression of him is primarily as a scientist (isn't he a molecular biologist or something?) who just happened to write this book, partly because he was angry, and partly because he could see an opportunity that nobody else was following. But ultimately it seems to me that he's not particularly interested in taking on the role of an atheist "pope", simply because, to him, the matter is so uncontroversial that it's barely worth arguing about, and he'd rather be in the lab dissecting frogs.

I have been interested in religion in the past. I think there is a lot of beauty and goodwill in religion, and I have seen how it brings meaning to many people's lives. But for me, my atheism comes not from having been convinced by the "against" argument, but by taking the position that, if you had hitherto absolutely no concept of religion or of a god, and you were set the task of coming up with an explanation for why the universe exists, you would never in your right mind imagine that it must have been created by this great big man up in the sky. It's just too much of a leap.

[cont]

Secondly my reading of religious texts is that, no matter how hard they try, they can't pre-empt the depth of human experience. It's just too big to pin down. And as life becomes more and more complex, religious doctrines fall further and further from the mark. That's why they are most heavily subscribed to amongst people in the least-developed countries.

And lastly, I just think that from the point of view of personal politics, to believe in a god is to abrogate your sense of responsibility for your own existence – and what kind of a nasty god would create such an unhealthy, depraved, dysfunctional animal?

I’m glad you’re asking these questions Madeleine. It’s something everyone needs to do for themselves. Just make sure you do it with the right intentions, and for your own intentions.

I take it from the article that Madeleine Kirk has not actually read Dawkins' book, because if she had, she would find why Dawkins is not prepared to debate Craig. Craig is a creationist, in that he promotes "intelligent design" which is creationism twisted to meet present day scientific facts. However, there is still no evidence to support intelligent design, and intelligent design is stranded without belief in a deity.

As a debate about belief has no chance of presenting any new information or rational argument, a debate with Craig only provides Craig with some legitimacy.

Dawkins is not trying to convert anyone to atheism only to show that atheists have no reason to be apologetic for their lack of belief, and that morality and goodness is founded on religion.

That's a bit patronising, Sam Jandwich.

>>...but really, there's no reason why your opinion should be any less valuable than anyone else's<<

Not to mention...

>>I’m glad you’re asking these questions Madeleine...<<

Which caused me to wonder... what questions?

There was not a single question asked in the entire article - not even the vaguest rhetorical one. Such presumption, such certainty, is not a good look. At any age.

The article does not provide us with any sense that she has researched the topic, but has instead taken it upon herself to stand on the sidelines and randomly snipe.

A cursory glance - no more than that - is all that it takes to unearth Dawkins formal position. It's on his web site.

"The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering."

Nowhere is there a hint that his intentions include providing our author with "intellectually stimulating arguments for atheism". His stance is simply to deplore the damage that religion has caused, and continues to cause. Atheism is a given.

I suspect that if there were no religion-inspired hatred of gays and treatment of women as second-class citizens, no tax-free status for religious propaganda machines, no religious interference in scientific research, no inter-religious bigotry ("you can't build a mosque here"), and no killing of people in the name of one religion or the other, you'd never have heard of him.

As for his distaste for debate on the topic, I share his view wholeheartedly. I find any arguments "for" religion so totally preposterous, that they are impossible to attack. It's like trying to explain to a three year-old that Santa and the tooth fairy don't exist, when they know, from the evidence of their own eyes, what those magical beings can do.

The only "rigorous debate" possible on religion is between believers of different faiths.

But I guess when you're asked to decide between the tooth fairy and Santa, someone's gonna get hurt.

Atman;
You Say, "Oddly, atheists don't say God doesn't exist, they say God 'probably' doesn't exist. Its a strange each way bet as if they are leaving themselves an escape clause."

Atheists really do not say that. That was what was said on a bus advertisment so that it met advertising requirements. Atheists and non theists say, "There is no irrefutable evidence that any gods exist" Ninety nine point nine percent of the gods that once "existed" are no longer accepted as gods.

The author of the article needs to read and undersatand the science in Richard Dawkins' other book "The Greatest Show on Earth".

I watched the Craig debate with Hitchens as mentioned in McReal's earlier comment. Craig indulges in twists and turns that make sensible debate impossible so why bother.