Unlikely to mislead.

Remember the atheist busses in England? The ones that told us "There's probably no God"? (The ones answering explicitly Christian bus ads, by the way.)

Unsurprisingly, Christian Voice and some others complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in Britain, saying that the ads were misleading and demanding that they be pulled.

As the Grauniad tells us, the ASA decided to side-step the challenge of ruling on the existence of God, and to declare the ads "unlikely to mislead or to cause serious or widespread offence." That's enough to declare that "the British Humanist Association's campaign did not breach the advertising code".

Although it might have been entertaining to see the ASA tackle the issue of proof - the ads, after all, say there "probably" isn't a god; that's not so hard to defend - so that Christians, and others, would have to back up the ads they plaster around, this is probably a good outcome. After all - Christian Voice and their 300 or so letter writers have been forced to ask the ASA to treat God like a laundry detergent. Is this ad "misleading"? Forget "offensive"; the ASA can only rule on whether the ad will "mislead".

And it won't. Telling people there's no god is "unlikely to mislead" them.

There. That's a good first step, isn't it?