Well this is wrong straight out of the gate. I for one have been connecting belief to doctrine for several years in various other places. Indeed,I’ve defined “belief”, as practised by mythology fanboys, as uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions, and doctrines are based upon unsupported assertion, again, by definition.
Which might have much to do with the fact that atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. And as a corollary, by not presenting assertions itself, is the very antithesis of doctrine, once again by definition.
You’re doing nothing of the sort, you’re simply seeking to impose your errors upon us. NOT treating unsupported mythological assertions uncritically as fact, is again the very antithesis of a “doctrine”.
Once again, wrong. Because a doctrine implies uncritical acceptance of assertions. Suspicion of assertions is the antithesis of “doctrine”, once again, by definition.
Again, wrong. This isn’t “atheism”, it’s anti-theism. Which is a separate and well-defined position.
Again, laughably and hopelessly wrong. See above.
Oh, and requiring policy to be based upon postulates supported by evidence isn’t a “doctrine”, it’s the proper application of the rules of discourse to said policy making process. Do learn the elementary concepts applicable here, before further embarrassing yourself before a global public audience.