Happy that a misconception I shared with many others (including Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert!) got cleared up. All this while, I'd understood atheists as those who're convinced that God doesn't exist. Based on this understanding, I'd take pains to clarify that I'm an agnostic, 'cos while I'm not convinced that God exists, I'm not convinced she doesn't exist, either. Subtle difference, but a real one nonetheless.

Now I understand that atheism too is an absence of belief in God (check out this link: http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/atheism-as-the-absence-of-belief/). Very different from a belief that there's no God. And no different from an agnostic!

I gather there is a strong form of athiesm that means a belief in the non-existence of God, but appears that most atheists wouldn't fall in that category.

Who the heck cares, you may ask. Well, it does make a difference. In the absence of conclusive evidence one way or another, a belief that there's no God is as irrational as a belief that there is a God.

Now that my misconception's been cleared up, I'm prepared to treat atheists as reasonable people. Strong atheists of course will continue to be considered by me as fundamentalist as the Hindutva types.(Not that I think anybody gives a damn about it, but just in case...)