[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[Belacqua]

Most atheist will argue something to the effect that they do not believe, because their brain function does not compute the evidence that theists argue; and theists will argue something to the effect that they believe because their brain directs them to believe. Neither side is accepting that it is all based on doctrine - ideas that are passed on to others.

 
Hmm...

I don't think I've heard anyone make that particular argument. "My brain won't let me believe it," or something like that.

Obviously atheists think that our thinking happens in the brain. But does anybody really deny that the content of what we think (the concepts, ideas, etc.) are passed on to us? I mean, it seems clear that a lot of what we know about the world has been passed on to us through other people. 

I'm also skeptical that anything that's passed on to us deserves to be called "doctrine." Google tells me that "doctrine" means

a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

Some things, or systems, would be doctrine. And atheists probably hold to some (non-religious) doctrines, if they are part of a political party or something. Maybe you could argue that the scientific method as a means to evaluate evidence is something like a "doctrine," though it sounds a bit off to me. 

But I agree with you that what atheists hold to be true about the world -- and the standards they use to evaluate all kinds of claims -- are very largely received from other people. So if the point you're making is that atheists are using a set of standards or beliefs that they have largely learned from others, and that they aren't purely free-thinking and original, then I'd agree with that.

Then the think tank is not secular it is in pursuit of advancing a specific doctrine.

[...]

I think a secular organization means that it is organized in such a manner that it gathers as much diversity as possible and aggregates its agenda accordingly, usually solutions to problems.

OK, you're using the word "secular" in a way that I'm not familiar with. I doubt that many people would agree with you on this. It tends to be very much used in relation to the religious world. So saying that a think tank which supports Keynesian economic doctrine (and no religious beliefs at all) is not secular would be non-standard. 

Or for example, you could have a graduate school of literature that was famous for using a particular interpretive technique -- say New Criticism along the lines used by John Crowe Ransom or I. A. Richards. It would not be diverse, but by not having a religious slant it would usually be called secular. 

The Latin root of the word "secular" means something like a generation or an age. It was used to translate the Greek Aion, which, as used by Homer, means a person's lifespan. It was therefore related to the passing of time -- things that change. Augustine was the first to use it as a contrast to the religious world, which he took to deal with eternal things. Secular issues, for him, dealt with things that change, while religion is about the eternal truth. 

So using "secular" merely to mean any kind of unbiasedness would be non-standard -- perhaps unique to you.