As an athiest, these ads don't make me feel any better. They seem shallow and pointless.

Now, in the UK maybe this seems pretty benign, but here in the US the religious organizations are much better financed than any athiest or humanist group. These ads are begging for a response and it gives me a headache just thinking about it.

Not that I think atheists should hide, but this is just ridiculous and counter productive. I really question Dawkin's motives here. He's starting to look like an athiest Ann Coulter - not really out to argue a point, just scratching for ways to get attention.

Well, most people in the UK aren't religious, so it's not really a big deal. I'm a British atheist, and I couldn't care less about the whole debate, if that's what it is.

As regards "begging for a response" (scorad), these ads ARE a response in themselves - religious organisations have been putting up ads saying "Jesus is lord" and "God is love" for centuries.

I would be quite happy if the govt would just get rid of all religious advertising, etc. altogether. People should just keep their religious (or areligious) beliefs private.

It reminds me of my wife's imitation of a stereotypical British newscaster ... ending every story with (cue somber British accent) "And there were no survivors." Even the human interest pieces about kittens and hometown teams.

If I never see another hometown team story again, it'll be too soon. Puke!

I am an atheist, and I find these advertisements a bit comical. But, unlike many of my acquaintances that are non-religious I ultimately think things of this sort are beneficial for people who are (in America much more than Britain, admittedly) are widely reviled.* Simply making people aware of the argument is essential. Many people (again, in America at least) are truly unaware that there is even an alternative to a religious life. (In high school, when I was just beginning to shed my religious beliefs, for example, I was having a conversation about a book I was reading by Michael Shermer. My teacher was interested in the book, and wrote down its title and author. She then asked me if he was Catholic. After I said, "No, he is an agnostic," she crumpled up the paper she had been writing on, and with a grimace on her face, threw it in the trash. As a young person who was struggling with his own disbelief, a mentor so explicitly disgusted by something one feels will never change about oneself, is a frustrating experience. Examples such as this are not uncommon in my personal life. For a more scientific example, however, consider this University of Minnesota study: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib%20Atheist%20Faith%20and%20Values.html The study found that atheists are trusted less than gays, muslims, and recent immigrants.)

I suppose my support for things such as Dawkin's signs (or even his weak book) is because I trust that atheistic arguments are ultimately more convincing than theistic arguments. This, in conjunction, with a Millian (or maybe even Rortyian) trust that "truth" comes out of public and good faith argument, is a good reason to support little things like Dawkin's signs.

Evangelism is loathsome, in all its forms.

I think it's pretty amusing, but it would be much more so in the US. There would be a total uproar among the evangelicals, and it would be interesting to see which one would prevail, freedom of speech or the evangelicals(I use them because I think they would be the only ones to have a strong reaction and try to fight it). After all, we can't stop them from handing out pamphlets and mini Bibles, could they grant another group the same rights?

If only there was an atheistic alternative to little cross necklaces. I can't quite think of a good symbol. Even in laid-back Canada, you find church signs all over the place making declarations about my soul and what's going to happen to it.

ajlongini - Evangelicalism is a Christian belief in the authority is certain scriptures. I certainly hope you didn't mean to imply that Dawkins was being an evangelical, because that would be a misunderstanding of the word. If I recall correctly, science does not strictly adhere to any ancient texts, and actively encourages criticism of previous scientific ideas. Of course, you knew all of this already, from elementary school.

As an Atheist, I think it's important that far more be done regarding public awareness and sensitization. Atheists really are reviled in the US outside of certain liberal spheres. And even then, many people I know still dodge the term because it's too controversial and will use some euphemism because they are afraid of the reaction "atheist" will engender from the general populace.

I'm sick to death of religion being pervasive and accepted in the public sphere while atheists and atheism remains closeted. I myself have been guilty of dodging the use of that answer, because after growing up in a rural midwestern town, I know too well the long debate/tirade/proselytizing that is likely to ensure upon that answer.

I applaud Dawkins and anyone else ready and willing to push atheism into the public sphere as an accepted social norm.