Points I agree with him on:
1) Atheism needs a better spokesman, though of course any spokesman is unofficial, than Dr. Richard Dawkins. He's a smart man, a fine scientists (so far as I know)...but he seems to outright try to offend any and all religious people. While offending the conservative religious loonies (regardless of persuasion) is a worthy pass time, there are legitimately liberal religious folks who have a "live and let live" attitude. Attacking them and their beliefs doesn't really make you much better (in my book) than a evangelical whacko preaching to the unwilling.
2) If there were a kind of a publicly visible "atheist center", atheists might have a higher q rating with the general populace. Since it isn't a religion and isn't organized, there's an element of...mystery, I guess, to religious people. Imagine if some kind of Christian version of Richard Dawkins was the only or primary exposure you had to Christians...I'd be bit less than anxious to meet folks like him in my day to day.
Where he goes wrong:
1) It only bolsters the case for atheism being some kind of counter religion to Christianity.
2) No one will use it.
We also shouldn't be associating science with atheism too strongly.