Nick, you give the definition of doctrine yourself
Actually I copied it from the internet...
do you suggest Atheism is not taught? Why?
Absolutely I do !! And why ? Because it patently isn't !! Where do I go for atheist classes ? Is it taught in schools ? Are there gatherings of atheists who discuss their non-beliefs ? Who is the leader of Atheism ? Are there preachers or non-spiritual leaders of atheism ?
Of course it is, it's a new idea, a cultural paradigm, it's the Zeigeist, hardly spoken of Pre WW1 - infact they...
New ?!! Or maybe another way to look at it is that it pre-dates any and all religion. It just didn't have a label then, but before humans invented their gods then by default everyone was an atheist.
And who are 'they' that you're quoting ?
...say it's rise is the result of the Post War existential angst and the philosophy of Authenticity that followed which tried to reason quite what had gone wrong with humanity.
That's easy - religion is what's gone wrong with humanity.
People have been atheists for, bascially, ever. It's just that people are less constrained by the religious constructs of modern societies and feel able to say, without fear of persecution, that they are atheists.
Let's get this straight - humanity and culture evolved around the ideas of there being a higher spiritual realm, there is not a civilisation in history or a culture in existence that doesn't have a revered God head,
Many of which have come and gone, and their god(s) with them...
Civilisation and religion may go hand in hand, but context is everything - religion was to society in ancient civilisations what politics are to modern societies; a way of controlling the masses and keeping them just sufficiently under your 'authority' so you can maintain power and control.
the ideology is part of us, it's in us by nature, Religion is learned but a reverence to the spriritual, a belief that we are not all there is,
Most people are not leaders, so need to be lead. Religion is a convenient way of pandering to that need.
And it may be your belief that 'we are not all there is', but it certainly isn't mine. Actually that's not quite true - I don't believe we are alone in the universe so we're not all there is if you consider that intelligent life exists elsewhere.
that we are not the top of the line, is innate to humanity, if it were not we would not be having this discussion, people would not study cosmology, philosophy or religion and we wouldn't have gone to the moon.
then who, or what, is ? And it's not 'innate' if something has to be learned, which you said yourself above is the case... I do not believe that children are, from birth, given to a sense of reverence to the spiritual or a feeling that we are not 'top of the line' - I think that is imbued upon them by parents and 'teachers'.
And Cosmology and going to the moon have absolutely NOTHING to do with religion - I'm geniunely confused about how you think spirituality got us to the moon...
Atheism is a modern movement,
It's not a movement... The fact that you think it is shows your lack of understanding about what it is. It does seem to be a label applied by those of a religious bent to give some focus to their fears and self-doubts about their own religious beliefs.
stemming from an academic process that seeks to change the status quo,
What academic process ? It's not taught...
And atheists don't seek to change the status quo, though some may be more vocal in their questionning of religious beliefs, some may even mock those who are religious.
the very fabric of our nature, there is nothing wrong with this, it may very well be progress, I admire good critical thinking.
If you admire good critical thinking, why do you seem so aggressive towards the concept of atheism ?
Unfortunately Atheist doctrine
There is no atheist doctrine....
now revolves largely about arguing semantics of words and pointing fun at peoples belief systems,
The pointing fun at peoples' belief systems I find objectionable, not on religious grounds, but because I think it's unnecessary if a rational debate is to be had. It simply undermines the positions of those who poke fun at those with religious beliefs.
because as you will see from The Heretics adoption of Dawkins silly gnostic/agnostic semantic riddle
'semantic riddle' ? Or something you happen to disagree with and therefore lable 'silly' ? Or maybe it's because you struggle to find a way to refute the position that The Heretic has adopted ?? Therefore it's easy to try and put it down than engage in some critical thinking.
no one can actually say for definate whether there is a God or not, if they do they're lying or deluded, it's not possible to fix on that conclusion without an element of belief or faith, to say you don't believe is simply the opposite of saying you do believe, both fairly baseless conclusions.
Atheism doesn't have to be evidence based. I have no evidence that god, or gods, don't exist. But that doesn't stop be from being fervent in my non-belief of gods - I am very clear that I don't believe in gods. And that, at it's core, is all atheism is - a non-belief in gods. Not just your god, but any gods. All of them. Every last one.
As an atheist I'm not setting out to prove the non-existence of god, or challenge the belief of others by presuming to say "you're wrong" - I just don't believe in gods. I am, if you will, a passive atheist, though I will try and explain my position in a dialogue such as this because I think it's important that people properly understand where I am coming from, rather than trying to label me based on their views and prejudices about what atheism is and what it might stand for (in their mind).
The atheist will often tell you that they don't believe in anything with out evidence or experience, but this is also not true they just choose to put their belief in evidence and experience of a certain nature.
Again, this seems to be you projecting your opinions and prejudices onto people who choose not to believe in gods. I don't need evidence to support my non-belief - I simply don't believe there is a god, or gods.