Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Montrovant]

Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.

Last week we were communists or socialists.

Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.

And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.

I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.

 

[the_human_being]

Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.

Last week we were communists or socialists.

Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.

And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.

I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.

He should know. He's Black, a racist, an atheist, gay, and a Liberal. He's also an Obama lap-dog.

 

[sealybobo]

Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.

Last week we were communists or socialists.

Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.

And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.

I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.

He should know. He's Black, a racist, an atheist, gay, and a Liberal. He's also an Obama lap-dog.

You forgot commy or socialist. I'm sorry if I'm not rich enough to think corporations should be running this country instead of a government that is elected and represents We the People. You right wing fools actually think CEO's & Corporations should decide policy, even after the George Bush Great Recession of 07.

 

[the_human_being]

Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.

Last week we were communists or socialists.

Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.

And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.

I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.

He should know. He's Black, a racist, an atheist, gay, and a Liberal. He's also an Obama lap-dog.

You forgot commy or socialist. I'm sorry if I'm not rich enough to think corporations should be running this country instead of a government that is elected and represents We the People. You right wing fools actually think CEO's & Corporations should decide policy, even after the George Bush Great Recession of 07.

You left out a word. It's you "RICH' right wing fools.

 

[sealybobo]

Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.

Last week we were communists or socialists.

Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.

And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.

I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.

He should know. He's Black, a racist, an atheist, gay, and a Liberal. He's also an Obama lap-dog.

You forgot commy or socialist. I'm sorry if I'm not rich enough to think corporations should be running this country instead of a government that is elected and represents We the People. You right wing fools actually think CEO's & Corporations should decide policy, even after the George Bush Great Recession of 07.

You left out a word. It's you "RICH' right wing fools.

The rich right wingers aren't fools. They are greedy. It's the poor and middle class right wingers who are dumb. They don't realize to the rich we are all n*#*rs.

 

[the_human_being]

Last week we were communists or socialists.

Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.

And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.

I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.

He should know. He's Black, a racist, an atheist, gay, and a Liberal. He's also an Obama lap-dog.

You forgot commy or socialist. I'm sorry if I'm not rich enough to think corporations should be running this country instead of a government that is elected and represents We the People. You right wing fools actually think CEO's & Corporations should decide policy, even after the George Bush Great Recession of 07.

You left out a word. It's you "RICH' right wing fools.

The rich right wingers aren't fools. They are greedy. It's the poor and middle class right wingers who are dumb. They don't realize to the rich we are all n*#*rs.

A man after my own heart --if I had one.

 

[Montrovant]

 

[the_human_being]

Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.

Last week we were communists or socialists.

Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.

And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.

I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.

He should know. He's Black, a racist, an atheist, gay, and a Liberal. He's also an Obama lap-dog.

You forgot commy or socialist. I'm sorry if I'm not rich enough to think corporations should be running this country instead of a government that is elected and represents We the People. You right wing fools actually think CEO's & Corporations should decide policy, even after the George Bush Great Recession of 07.

Shhhhh. Corporations ARE running the country. Ever hear of LOBBYISTS?

 

[sealybobo]

Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.

Last week we were communists or socialists.

Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.

And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.

I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.

He should know. He's Black, a racist, an atheist, gay, and a Liberal. He's also an Obama lap-dog.

You forgot commy or socialist. I'm sorry if I'm not rich enough to think corporations should be running this country instead of a government that is elected and represents We the People. You right wing fools actually think CEO's & Corporations should decide policy, even after the George Bush Great Recession of 07.

Shhhhh. Corporations ARE running the country. Ever hear of LOBBYISTS?

Well just like the slave owners used religions to keep their slaves in line, I believe they use religion to keep us in line. They use it as a wedge issue. Someone earlier said they hate religious politics. They gotta use it to divide us. I have middle class friends who are going t count on SS and medicare but they vote for Paul Ryan and they go to tea bag and libetarian rallies. Because they thought they'd be "grandfathered in" and they would only fuck the next generations, we see our grandparents and parents healthcare costs going up. And they want to say it was Obama. If it was only that simple.

But that's the problem. That's who that kind of politics works on. The simple people. Anyone who votes GOP because of abortion or gays is voting against them and me (middle class) because of bullshit that doesn't even matter.

Or it matters, when both parties are actually beneficial to all Americans. The Democrats represent labor and clearly they are in the pockets of Corporations too. That's another problem or conversation, but the fact is, the GOP only represent people who are either rich or at least comfortable enough in their station in life that they feel safe from GOP anomics. The sad truth is their $ policies hurt the majority of us. This isn't the Reagan party anymore. This is radical Ayn Rand Libertarian every man for himself, no regulations are good, survival of the fittest, free market, no ss or medicares. And they actually convince poor or middle class people their policies are a good idea. And when we try them from 2000-2008 and they fail miserably, they say we didn't go far enough. So the only way to try their fantasy is to go all in basically. Meanwhile they now have 90% of the total sum of $ and they ain't job creatin with it if you know I mean. Trickle down ain't happening.

So until the middle class is restored, put god gays and guns on the back burner. If you are a worker vote Democratic.

PS. There is no god.

 

[asaratis]

I insist, for the thousandth time, that is reasonable to disbelieve in the existence of something for which there is no evidence of its existence, whether it's God or Big Foot,

and one need not repeatedly inject the caveat that it's still 'possible' for something one doesn't believe in to actually exist.

Yes, we get it. Theoretically ANYTHING is possible. That doesn't make one's decision not to believe in something some sort of mystical exercise.

Funny, I never said that your beliefs are unreasonable, I just keep pointing out that they are beliefs. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

By your measure, everything is a belief. Fine.

But common sense would tell us that every belief is not a religion. If that were not so, then there would be no category of humans that could be labeled 'non-religious' or 'irreligious'.

I know why they want to lump us in together with all the other organized religions.

Notice liberal Christians don't mind when people of other faiths don't believe their bible stories? Why? They're basically saying the same thing us atheists are saying about their stories. Only difference is they believe their own fairy tales, we don't.

So for example, a Christian doesn't mind if a Muslim believes his own stories of god. Christians don't seem to mind Jews don't think Jesus was the Messiah either. Us atheists aren't alone on that. Traditional Christians don't care what Mormons think about their church being corrupt. They don't care what Jehova's say about only they go to heaven. Catholics don't care what born against say about having to be baptized as an adult to be saved.

So, they want to lump us in with all the other religions they just agree to disagree with.

Atheism is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding any claim.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.

Wrong, silly bozo. Atheism, by definition is a belief that goes does not exist. It's okay that you believe that (if you are indeed an Atheist. If you have no belief regarding the question of existence, you're nothing but an agnostic.

 

[Tuatara]

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

Disbelief.

Webster: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.

Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?

Here's another trusted dictionary definition:

disbelief
noun /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/ us

› the refusal to believe that something is true:

disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

 

[asaratis]

I guessed you would not post the link. It does come ver batum from Wikipedia...a source that is open to editing by anyone. Your boy editor in this case was Kai Nielsen (born 1926) is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. Before moving to Canada, Nielsen taught at New York University (NYU). He specializes in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Nielsen has also written about philosophy of religion, and is an advocate of contemporary atheism.

He has redefined it for you. The original definition comes from 1570 AD. Google that! Redefining yourselves to keep from being called a religion doesn't work. That's like the liberals redefining themselves to be progressives...instead of liberals because liberalism took on a bad name several years ago. They are still nothing more than worthless fucking liberals....and an Atheist is still just one who believes that God does not exist.

Nice try, but no cigar!

atheist
noun [C] /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/ us

› someone who believes that God does not exist


atheist - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.

The definition I quoted above came from a modern day dictionary.

Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus

The etymology of the word indicates its origin being around 1570.

Online Etymology Dictionary

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)

There is no need to redefine the word just to make Atheists feel better about themselves. If you simply have a lack of belief in God, you're simply agnostic. It's really that simple, simpleton.

Agnostic is not sure either way. Too wishy washy for me. I'm an agnostic atheist.

I don't know if there is a god. To know that I would have to be a god myself and be able to peek inside black holes. But I'm certain enough that none of the organized religions are real so I call myself an atheist.

Lack of belief in your faith takes no faith just a brain.

The way they're trying to define atheism is based on a general 'principle' that anything is possible, therefore the atheist is committing an act of faith by not believing in God, because the possibility of God can't be ruled out.

lol, or something like that.

Correct, an appeal to ignorance fallacy.


One cannot 'not' believe in something that never existed as perceived by theists to begin with.


There is no evidence that 'god' as perceived by theists exists, therefore it requires faith to believe in something absent any evidence of its existence, where no 'faith' is required to simply acknowledge that lack of evidence.

You are correct to say that no faith is required to acknowledge a lack of evidence. I acknowledge that there is no evidence to prove that God exists AND that there is certainly no evidence to support the claim that He does not exist. You are incorrect to say that believing that no deities exist is not based on faith. Atheists believe that God does not exist. Therefore, Atheists have faith that God does not exist.

 

[Hollie]

That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.

The definition I quoted above came from a modern day dictionary.

Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus

The etymology of the word indicates its origin being around 1570.

Online Etymology Dictionary

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)

There is no need to redefine the word just to make Atheists feel better about themselves. If you simply have a lack of belief in God, you're simply agnostic. It's really that simple, simpleton.

Agnostic is not sure either way. Too wishy washy for me. I'm an agnostic atheist.

I don't know if there is a god. To know that I would have to be a god myself and be able to peek inside black holes. But I'm certain enough that none of the organized religions are real so I call myself an atheist.

Lack of belief in your faith takes no faith just a brain.

The way they're trying to define atheism is based on a general 'principle' that anything is possible, therefore the atheist is committing an act of faith by not believing in God, because the possibility of God can't be ruled out.

lol, or something like that.

Correct, an appeal to ignorance fallacy.


One cannot 'not' believe in something that never existed as perceived by theists to begin with.


There is no evidence that 'god' as perceived by theists exists, therefore it requires faith to believe in something absent any evidence of its existence, where no 'faith' is required to simply acknowledge that lack of evidence.

You are correct to say that no faith is required to acknowledge a lack of evidence. I acknowledge that there is no evidence to prove that God exists AND that there is certainly no evidence to support the claim that He does not exist. You are incorrect to say that believing that no deities exist is not based on faith. Atheists believe that God does not exist. Therefore, Atheists have faith that God does not exist.

That's the typical pointless, nonsense you have been corrected on previously. Concluding supernatural don't exist is not a religious faith of a religious belief.

How is it that you have such a difficult time with simple concepts?

 

[asaratis]

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

Disbelief.

Webster: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.

Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?

Here's another trusted dictionary definition:

disbelief
noun /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/ us

› the refusal to believe that something is true:

disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack of skepticism.

Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.

Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian

I agree with Vladimir...

Vladimir
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.

I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.

Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Agnostic is not sure either way. Too wishy washy for me. I'm an agnostic atheist.

does that make you a wishy-washy god-denier?.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

then why not just say that you aren't an atheist, you're just an unconvinced?

 

[Tuatara]

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

Disbelief.

Webster: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.

Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?

Here's another trusted dictionary definition:

disbelief
noun /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/ us

› the refusal to believe that something is true:

disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack of skepticism.

Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.

Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian

I agree with Vladimir...

Vladimir
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.

I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.

Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.

What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.

As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

If you want to use it then you use it all:

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity .
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

Oxford Reference

atheism
Subject: Religion
The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos". It does not apply it to the suffix "ism". "No god" not "no belief".
The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
ism
noun \ˈi-zəm\ .
: a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix -ism
Full Definition of ISM
1
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god. Which is why I don't like definitions that much. It implies the word creates the thing. It does not. If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:

An Atheist has no god beliefs.
I am an Atheist.
Therefore, I have no god beliefs.

While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration. I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god. In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief. So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong. It can't be both.

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.

No. It wouldn't. But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other. Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument. Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma. It is what it is, regardless of definition. If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs. So far, I haven't met that person.

 

[PratchettFan]

Should the Constitution ban not praying in school? According to some here, that would be an atheist religious practice.

The Constitution does not ban not praying in school any more than it bans praying in school.

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.

That being the case, by prohibiting an official school prayer, the Court made not having an official school prayer mandatory, which,

if atheism is a religion, means that the Court mandated that public schools practice the atheist religious belief on prayer. That would be a 1st Amendment violation as well.

Some people get the point. I'm not going to suffer at length agonizing over the fact that you don't.

No one has suggested that Atheists get together to not pray. Not allowing children to be forced to engage in prayer is not forcing them to not believe in God. Now, if rather than a prayer the school was instead doing a quick recitation of why there was no God, then you might have an argument. I believe the SC would have found that unacceptable as well.

I wasn't making my argument. I was make the argument that logically follows one's belief that atheism is a religion.

Whether or not it is a religion depends upon how people treat it. Just believing there is no God does not make it a religion.

 

[PratchettFan]

As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

If you want to use it then you use it all:

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity .
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

Oxford Reference

atheism
Subject: Religion
The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos". It does not apply it to the suffix "ism". "No god" not "no belief".
The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
ism
noun \ˈi-zəm\ .
: a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix -ism
Full Definition of ISM
1
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god. Which is why I don't like definitions that much. It implies the word creates the thing. It does not. If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:

An Atheist has no god beliefs.
I am an Atheist.
Therefore, I have no god beliefs.

While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration. I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god. In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief. So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong. It can't be both.

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.