I’m not sure how recent these are, but bus-ad campaigns are pretty popular these days. The Foundation for the Freedom from Religion (who apparently misunderstand the principle of the separation of state and church, but I’m not American, so what do I care?) have a series of ads which are intended to represent stained glass windows. I understand that they’re trying to ape religious advertising, (if stained glass windows could be called that) or at least responding to it (whether actual or perceived, I’m not sure), but it really does little to help their denial of religiosity themselves. Indeed it caused Margaret Atwood to quip:

“‘I understand that in Britain recently, some people paid to put atheistic slogans on buses – someone paid! That’s religion! Once you’re paying money to put slogans on things, well it’s either a product you’re selling, a political party or religion.”

These ads certainly have a very real evangelistic zeal:

Dawkins refers to ‘smarts’ - those who have been enlightened by Darwin to see that there’s no need for God - is he inferring some kind of evolutionary advancement to the rest of us ‘dumbs’? No, rather it is simply well poising and posturing in attempt to quell disagreement by taking the intellectual high-ground. If Francis Collins is not a ‘smart’ then I’m not too worried to be excluded also.
Not to mention that Darwin’s Origin of Spieces does not logically necessitate atheism anyway! (and perhaps should take a moment to make clear that I am in no way arguing against evolution - if the reader is looking for a creationist-evolutionist fight, this ‘aint it.)

They seem to miss the irony of the dogmatism of the so-called New Atheist movement.

Why should we be kind to eachother? How do we know that?

Morality is the Achilles heal of atheism. That is not to say that atheist aren’t or cannot be moral, of course they can, as we all can - if morality is objective as Christians think then that much is obvious*. But atheism fails to account for it sufficiently. That is, morality as we humans practice it - and indeed, as this ad preaches it - is not consistent with the atheist world-view. In his book The God Delusion, Professor Dawkins only explanation is that it is a Darwinian misfire - a mistake. Hardly a basis for why we should be kind to each other.

Didn’t Stalin try that?

But actually, I don’t mind the ads, because it is putting God, and discussion of Him back on the agenda and public consciousness. And as Mark Baddeley points out in his excellent assesment of the original ‘probably no God’ bus ads:

‘Probably there is no God’ means that it is quite conceivable that there is a God; it is just that the speaker has, in their personal judgement, concluded that the balance of probability is against such a possibility. But that clearly invites the person reading the sign to consider seriously themselves whether they think God’s existence is that unlikely. And when such a question is asked seriously, very, very few people are prepared to accept that the balance of probability is against the existence of God. Atheism is like designer drugs: it’s a lifestyle choice for a small westernized elite.

I should also point out that I’m not actually particularly interested in defending religion as such. I am interested in the person and work of Jesus in human history. I have faith in him. I don’t need any bells or whistles.

—

* In TGD Dawkins points to research that shows that there is no significant difference in thinking what is ethical between theists and atheists. He argues this undermines the idea of needing God for morals, but it really only argues against the idea of requiring theistic belief for morals, which of course is not Christian doctrine anyway. Rather, it seems to support the idea that morality is an objective reality that we all recognise.