Not always, according to the Humanist Manifesto 2000, secular humanists are typically atheist, religious humanists not so.
No, however I am at a loss as to why you are obsessing over the subject. Atheism does not have a doctrine. However there are philosophies that lean of atheism as a base. It is not that hard to grasp.
Those are hardly "atheist doctrines". And those philosophies do not call fir the silly mummerings of the OP.
What do you think about Plato's view that atheists need to be put into correctional facilities? Or executed if they're using sophistry?
So that you can administer justice to atheists? That's horrible people shouldn't die because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
..... well...... obviously. You asked what I thought about X, X being a negative to me, and I responded with my comment.
Evolution is not an atheist doctrine. Evolution is an element of science which deals only in the natural world by definition. What is an atheist doctrine anyway? Been a atheist for years and I never heard any. I just don't believe what the guy in a robe and a pointy hat tells me on Sundays. *Wait is that a doctrine?*
If it can be imagined to be an atheist doctrine then it probably is The "atheism is faith" or "atheistic dogma" stuff is merely part of a game of having to turn a negative into positives in order to criticize it. While faith can be argued as any other positive occurrence, it's harder to deal with negatives such as no faith. What's there to critize if there is nothing? So religious people must either try to turn an absence of their own faith into a faith by itself or at least assume that there is some kind of dogmatic ideology that must be in opposition to their own so that they can wrap their minds around targeting it.