In all seriousness, although I'm an avid supporter of free speech, I'm not really in favour of billboards shouting about whatever your issue is - religion, gender, whatever. As a PP said, its potentially distracting to drivers and there is no room for nuance. It's a hell of a blunt instrument.
@Errol it didn't dent my comfort re God, but it sure dented my comfort in people. It really brought me down at the start of my day, and I can still clearly feel how I felt reading it 18 odd years later. I was going through a bad time with mental health and struggling in to work. It felt very depressing that some people were so wedded to their world view that they'd go to that much trouble to defend it and tell others they were wrong, and screw anyone hurt in the process.
I do take the point it might have been intended as a counter to the awful 'burn in hell' messages (which despite living in London I had never actually encountered). Perhaps as a PP said it was even intended as an emotional rather than just factual response, with the aim of being reassuring: you don't need to worry about what God does or doesn't think about you, because God probably doesn't exist.
I admit I hadn't considered that way of reading it. To me, the 'go and enjoy your life' seems mocking rather than reassuring - "Hello religious people, you know that thing you hold so dear? Well I'm here to tell you it's all made up! (Implication - you must be stupid to believe it). Have a nice day (now that I've upset you by being so dismissive)".
That's how it reads to me - and it's fair to assume that's how it read to at least some other people too.
In any case, we don't know what his motives were. But taken in context of the way he speaks and writes generally, I think it's fair to assume it was more about being right than comforting people hurt by religion (I don't know about the person who initiated the campaign - I've never heard of her so don't have an opinion).
I therefore still think it was, at best, an unwise course of action and at worse, downright inflammatory inconsiderate.
Of course, it could be argued that Dawkins is under no compunction to consider other people's feelings and beliefs, nor to be polite and considerate. That is true. In the same way, I, and others, are allowed to judge him for choosing to be so overtly inconsiderate. And I do.
And...I still respect his critical thinking skills.
(I now realise Dawkins wasnt the instigator of the poster campaign - but Dawkins is a high profile individual who chose to have his name on the posters, freely choosing to be associated publicly with it, unlike anonymous donors).