sectarianism in atheism

[robvalue]

No. It’s a matter of definition, mostly. Some people use it to mean lacking belief (not being convinced yet) that gods exists; some people prefer belief in the non-existence of gods. The second is a subgroup of the first, so it splits atheists up in that regard as to how strong their position is, but I’d hardly call those sects.

Of course atheists will have their own further beliefs about everything, which will subdivide them into whatever groups you want to talk about, but those are nothing to do with atheism itself.

[downbeatplumb]

Is atheism just as sectarian as some religions? There seems to be a few different camps out there from people who believe a more "pure" atheism, who do not believe in any "spirituality" to others who are "spiritual but not religious". 

Are there different sects within atheism and do some people believe their version of atheism to be "true" while another version of atheism is "false"? Is there an attitude or principle that would help avoid the formation of sectarianism?

People don't believe in gods for many different reasons, all of them valid. I would not call the differences sects. 

The people wanting to lump us into groups are mainly theists.

[chimp3]

I am an atheist because I don't believe in gods. I am an agnostic because I can not prove gods don't exist. I am an antitheist when theists get too pushy. I am sn apatheist when I am not thinking about this bullshit.

[The Grand Nudger]

When one group of atheists starts bombing another group of atheists for heresy, I'll start worrying about sectarianism in atheism.

[AniKoferBo]

can atheists go into certain aspects of religion and disagree and fight, although they do not recognize its existence in the first place or the existence of its creator ?!

[ignoramus]

you mean like "my non god is better than your non god"

not really.

[Peebothuhlu]

can atheists go into certain aspects of religion and disagree and fight, although they do not recognize its existence in the first place or the existence of its creator ?!

Hello!

Well, I'd phrase it a tad differently.

Can two people discuss the character of Darth Vader or High Chancellor Gowron? Yes, indeed they can. They can debate the validy of both character's actions within their respective worlds. Thier merrits and flaws etc.

Even while neither character is actually 'Real'.

Now... actually saying a diety is not real? That's kind of a different thing.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[The Valkyrie]

Why are year old posts getting reanimated?

Next thing we'll have an insane dr shouting "It's ALIVE!" while a hunchback swings from the ceiling.

We only allow that at Easter.

[Fireball]

A strange kind of trolling, I guess.

[Belacqua]

can atheists go into certain aspects of religion and disagree and fight, although they do not recognize its existence in the first place or the existence of its creator ?!

Yes. A lot of my conversations here have been like this.

Generally what happens is that someone will make a statement about religion that seems too simple or too narrow. Something like "Christianity requires you to believe in talking snakes." So I'll respond by pointing out all the Christians who don't believe in talking snakes, how spiritual literature isn't meant to convey meaning the same way that journalism does, etc. 

"Religion" is a huge diverse category and no statement can be true about every part of it. 

So it's very possible for atheists to disagree over some religious point.