Should they? The Wall Street Journal has a report on the attempts of various atheist organizations in the U.S. to make atheism more acceptable to the general public. Atheists are in many ways the least represented and most reviled minority in the U.S. with opinion polls consistently rating atheists as the least trustworthy group, below homosexuals and Muslims. The Economist noted in an article last year that only one U.S. congressman out of 535 would publicly admit to be an atheist, making him the highest-ranking politician to do so.

At the same time, atheists represent a fairly significant proportion of the population, though the exact figures depend on whom you count as an atheist. According to Adherents.com, if you count the people who put themselves in the secular, non-religious, agnostic or atheist categories as a single group, they would form the world’s third largest religious group. This is admittedly not entirely fair. The site takes pains to note that plenty of people in this category are theistic or spiritual but do not profess affiliation with any religious denomination. For many others, it would be more accurate to say that they are indifferent to religion rather than being non-believers and would not be interested in organized atheism anyway.

This leaves the so-called hardcore atheists, who make a conscious, deliberate and informed choice to disavow religion, who might be interested in forming an organized movements. But what purpose would such movements serve and what goals would they have? On one level, it’s not surprising that people would seek to connect with like-minded people to socialize with, but it’s clear that the members of groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the American Humanist Association aren’t just interested in being social clubs. The way I see it, such organizations can fill the following needs:

1. By establishing a presence in the public consciousness such that atheism is a valid religious choice accorded equal respect as traditional religions. In Malaysia, for example, religious folk will rightly refrain from proselytizing to someone whom they know is an active adherent of another religion, but atheists appear to be free game.
2. By making emotional support and information available to people who have become unsatisfied with their faith. Many people are religious simply because they were raised that way and never thought to question what they’d been taught. When they do harbour doubts about their religion, it can feel lonely if all your friends and family are religious. Atheist groups can provide assurance that turning away from religion is a choice that any individual should have the right to make.
3. By providing legal support and political pressure in cases of discrimination against atheists either in government policy or in the private sector.

At the same time, I believe that it is vital that such groups do not portray atheism as a sort of alternative religion. “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby” goes the familiar quote, but it’s worth reminding all the same. Religious folks have shared principles, teaching and values to unite them, but, other than a lack of belief in deities of any kind, atheists do not have shared values or principles of any kind, nor should they claim to. Similarly, atheism is neither a lifestyle nor a hobby. Atheists span the entire spectrum of professions, political affiliations and interests.

Some parties would like to use such groups to advance a commitment to reason, critical thinking and scientific advancement, but I regard such efforts as being dangerous and unnecessarily exclusive. While many atheists are drawn to the ideals and science, it would not be useful for such ideals to be linked to atheism in the public mind. It would only alienate the religious and promote the anti-intellectualism growing in some parts of the world. There is no particular reason why such advocacy work should be confined to atheist groups but the ideals being touted are universal ones that both the religious and the non-religious should embrace.

So to the question of whether or not atheists should organize, I would answer, yes, but in a limited manner that takes account of what atheism is and what it is not. Unlike religion, atheism makes no claim to being able to solve the world’s or even one’s own problems. All it does claim is that religion isn’t a necessary condition of being happy, but the rest is up to the individual.