Christianity did not evolve in a vacuum. It got its morals from the pre-existent systems and did not really introduce any brand new ideas. To the degree that the ‘pre-existing system’ is the Old Testament, I won’t challenge you all that much.  But to the degree that you are suggesting that Christian drew upon paganism and philosophy for its ethics then I politely disagree.  As I’m doing postgraduate studies in this kind of field, and in a context (Oxford) which is particularly interested in tracing the history of ideas, I have some confidence on this issue.  It is clear to me that popular paganism, philosophers, and Christians were relatively clear-eyed about the gulf between them when morality was looked at as a whole, however much they may agree on specific answers to particular moral questions.  And, by and large, they were much better at thinking in those kind of terms than we are. 

As far as the outdated moral teaching of the Bible, there’s a difference between us so great that it’d be beyond a comment to even begin to tackle it.  So, I’ll just acknowledge the disagreement here.

I think you are reading too much in to it…Humanists seem to advocate that it is ok to walk away from the religions and not to worry about hell or shunning of their Church.

And if they had simply said that it is ok to walk away from religions or shun Church, then I would indeed be reading to much into it to focus on the denial of moral accountability.  But when the slogan hinges upon the denial of future judgement I suggest that this is not a strained reading of the message.  To paraphrase the ad: “God probably does not exist, so there’s no future judgement, so get on with maximising your enjoyment of your life.”  Humanists advocate many things.  The ad advocated a couple of things in particular.  I’m not sure the former can be used to negate comments about the latter.

I don’t know where you get “Entailed in the slogan “stop worrying and enjoy your life” is the promotion of selfishness as the basis for community”. To me it sounds like you are fighting strawmen by getting in to deep moral arguments from this short ad.

Realistically, my hunch is that this is where I might have carried the least number of readers - many might have thought that bringing the social dimension into an ad which was clearly aimed at the individual was setting up a straw man.

In my view, it depends a lot as to how individualistic one is, and how much one thinks that fundamental to human beings is that life is to be lived in communities.  I don’t think that the social dimenision is something that is an ‘add-on’ but is intrinsic to being human. 

So when a group puts forward a slogan about life it should be analysed from the point of view of what if offers the community as well as what it offers the individual.

For what it’s worth, I wasn’t expecting anything ‘deep’ from a one sentence ad - I get the limitations of the genre.  It wasn’t the shallowness of the moral vision, but its absence that was my critique.

Let me put it this way.  According to atheists, religion is the source of a lot of evil, and people are more likely to be good if they approach life rationally without being bound by religious texts.  So when the ad says: “There’s probably no God, so don’t fear a future a judgement and…”  what should have come next, according to atheism’s own rhetoric?  I suggest something like, “get out there and serve others” (or “make the world a better place” or suchlike).  The fact that the ad appealed to selfishness as part of its strategy enhancing the appeal the atheism is notable and worthy of critique.

If you want to argue about morals, please read some modern atheist philosophers. Statements like “Atheism is a moral vacuum, filled by whatever passes for morality in the society around it.” are made by preachers, not serious thinkers.
Another opposition that is not well founded I fear, this time between ‘preachers’ and ‘serious thinkers’.  Some of the best serious thinkers I know are preachers.

I read philosophy.  And, while it might be easy to miss, over the course of the two parts I did indicate that the ad reflected upon popular atheism. 

To suggest that we can’t evaluate the moral vision inherent to the ad because it wasn’t the product of atheism’s deep thinkers…
The ad was produced by a broad coalition of atheists, and has (as far as I can see) been positively received by atheists at large.  That says something about where atheism as whole (i.e. popular atheism) is at.  And it is not ‘unfair’ to raise concerns about what the ad does show about the community that produced it, even though it wasn’t the product of the serious moral philosophers.