Lack of "Connection" to something higher - is this holding atheism back?

[Heathenous]

@NoMoreFaith
The idea is not to create an “atheist organization,” the idea is to create an organization which atheists can join and gain purpose from. Subtle difference.

Let me give an example I have, so people can have an idea what I view as an alternative to religion:
An organization (doesn’t have to be formal, can just be a group of like-minded people) who join together weekly to discuss science, philosophy, politics (anything concerning humanity), listen to people give their thoughts on issues, and have a shared purpose in helping humanity in a certain way (be it in the realm of science, education, conservation, whatever) which they work on together.

Obviously that is just one example of what could be an alternative to religion. Could it be used for nefarious means? Sure, but so can every other organization. Is it an atheist organization? Yes, in the fact its members don’t believe in God, no, in the fact that belief is not central to the organization.

This is exactly what I was referring to, as far as what I wish was available where I live.

In short; once you declare an atheist organisation as an alternative to religion, and fulfilling emotional needs, you are promoting a subjective opinion which weakens the foundation of objective empricism that Atheism stands for.

I don't think it necessarily has to be put forth as an alternative to religion. Why can't it stand alone as an organization for discussion, volunteer work, etc.? Take the Elks Lodge, for example. They pick a cause to raise funds for (ours does cerebral palsy), and they offer a sense of community. This is done without any specific religious affiliation. I know Elks that are Mormon, Jewish, Catholic, and Christian. I don't personally know any Atheist Elks members, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. My point is, it offers many of the same things a church offers, without religion as a focus. Why can't atheists band together to create something similar? I don't see how that would undermine "objective empiricism."