Theism tends to be the default in general society so by nature, it is a more congealed group vs the rest. And when we use taxonomy to classify groups, casually

Theism tends to be the default in general society so by nature, it is a more congealed group vs the rest. And when we use taxonomy to classify groups, casually in this case and by will of the group, we naturally define a commonality. Having "beef" with a defined group is more sensible than having "beef" with some nebulous other so no, I don't consider your assertions true that these are the same "beefs", if that's what you're implying. In the case you pointed out, the only thing those atheists had in common with other atheists then and now, in general, is just a name. There is no shared doctrine(s), it is defined by a lack of. I'd argue the converse, that it is much harder to be of toxic nature when your whole belief system, or lack thereof, is defined by a lacking as opposed to the what can be the insistence of the ones who posit beliefs.