great! I'm there!
While I totally agree that atheist views are hardly very conducive to political interconnectedness and that atheist view-points might distact from other more salient topics of discussion, I have felt in recent years that until someone takes a stand on the specifically non-religious approach to governance and in fact details ideological trespasses on human rights/education as the bona fide enemy of science and progress, that we will go nowhere as a nation.
I feel that the sad truth is that here, in the year 2011, we are struggling to attain a level of open mindedness that was known several times before in history, but that now stands threatened by conservatives and liberals alike, both of whom either want to invade every corner of our lives with the judgements of the corporate church or that traditions which infringe on us culturally should be preserved because the religious views upon which they are founded always deserve a "free pass" and be must be portayed as positive treasures of our rich cultural pasts. blah blah blah!
Atheism is a necessity for the next stage in human cultural evolution.
Please don't take on "Atheist" as a label for a political party. If you want to start a political party that happens to support atheism/secularism, that's fine, and I'm all for it. However we already have a hard enough time explaining to theists what defines an atheist and what doesn't, and labeling a political party "Atheist" will just be throwing gasoline on that fire.
When it comes to politics, you're not going to have all atheists agreeing with you, and I doubt they would appreciate having to defend themselves in conversations like, "I'm not an Atheist, I'm just a non-theist."
I appreciate where you're coming from, but this is not the correct way to approach the issue.
Pro tip: If you're trying to recruit do not say to your potential constituents "you're plainly wrong LOL".
It seems like the party's focus is ridding religious bias from government, but there is nothing else to the platform, which I suspect is because the opinions of different atheists vary. Furthermore that position is faulty for it kind of implies that one can just simply let go of their personal philosophies during serious conversations. Honestly you guys are better off as a lobby group. Heck, this doesn't even sound too different from the concept of the american atheists association but with slightly different statements and it being a political party.
I don't see the point of this being a political party especially from what I see from the front page lacking in any big political stances (i.e. economy-you say economic responsibility but that topic has such a broad range of ideas in which it seems you guys haven't delved into). Your platform says nothing. It's bland. I'll say it again, the opinions of atheists are so vast because nothing else really unites us outside of a disbelief, which btw, is valued differently in each atheist. I don't think my philosophical stance on the question of "is there a god?" should be a drive in politics nor do I not want that philosophical stance to be associated with a political stance. all in all, color me unconverted.