The ads do not categorise anything, based on what I've read.  They are a simple statement of perspective. 

As for whether Dawkins is refuted by Eagleton, I think Eagleton provides a shining example of the logical emptiness of theist arguments for the existence of God.  His primary technique is straw man argumentation, in which he makes claims against Dawkins (e.g. theological illiteracy) which he proceeds from without providing evidence. 

Eagleton's arguments are little more than restatements of assumptions. Those that pretend to some more serious standing are primarily ad hominem attacks unjustified by evidence. The theological illiteracy charge is one example among many. For anyone familiar with Eagleton, it is also naked hypocrisy. Frankly, it is not possible to have a serious discussion with such people.

The distinction between religion and spiritualism is one that I freely admit to being unable to get a handle on.  It is not from lack of trying.  Rather, it seems that the definition of spirituality is vague in the mind of almost all who hew to the concept, and at variance with how many others claiming the same belief see it. To some, spirituality is similar to the deism of Thomas Jefferson, for others it is more akin to simple poetic wonder (which I do believe in, but without the magic bits that spirituality entails).  As such it is not something which can be argued against in a general way.

 As for how atheists would feel if there were religious ads all around, I can proved direct evidence from personal experience on that.  I find it objectionable but unavoidable.  I can't imagine how anybody has failed to notice the privileged position of religion in society, the free ride churches receive in terms of their use of public space, their tax exempt status, references to God in the constitution, their legal permission to use the education for purposes of religious propaganda and the like.  The proposition that atheists do not daily have their noses rubbed in the superstitous belief of others is just silly. If anything, these ads are merely offering religious believers a taste of soemthing I have experienced every day since I abondoned religious belief as an adolescent. If those who object are willing to take their beliefs behind closed doors and abandon their special privileges, I'm prepared to negotiate on my support for the bus ads.

In most threads of this sort, the claim is made that atheism is merely another dogmatic system of belief.  This is an odd argument, to say the least.  The principle premises for every atheist I know are that there can be no real belief without reason and that the working assumptions necessary to daily life are all subject to sceptical inquiry and refutation. The refusal of these ads in some communities is good evidence that such a position remains subversive in supposedly secular Canada, the affection of liberal intellectual rhetoric by religious believers notwithstanding.

To address a question from Frustrated Mess on another thread, since closed.  I do not propose that religious institutions are the only source of "oppression" or that "there there would be an end to colonization, conquest, and (wo)man's inhumanity to (wo)man" without them.  I do believe that it is one of the principle sources of oppression and those other things, and that its absence would mean an end to one of the most universally observed and powerful tools used by oppressors, colonizers, conquerers and the inhumane.