Doctrinaire religionists don't think people who don't follow their faith are atheists, they think those people follow a false god. That is not the same as an atheist.

Fundamentalist Christians believe "normal" Protestants, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, and Mormons (not to mention sects like Witnesses etc) are all followers of false gods. They don't call them atheists, they call them apostates, or heretics, or just plain evil.

I think you're being too polite with these people, Bowz. They're just flat ass crazy and no one should waste an atom of etiquette discussing them as if they were just another legitimate variety of religious experience.

Religious fanatics, just like political zealots, fear and hate those who are somewhat different from them much more than those who are totally opposed to them. To the wackofundo, an atheist is just someone who is dead wrong, and can easily be dismissed as the devil incarnate. But someone of the same faith who has slight doctrinal differences is proof that the fanatic's interpretation of the faith is not the only possible one, that others who are not demonstrably evil can have different but valid opinions. To the fanatic, political or religious, there are no "other opinions", there is just their truth and their enemies' lies. The possibility of even any intermediate state is a threat to their self-image.

The Bolsheviks could deal with Nazis, their polar opposites, in matters of convenience (like carving up Poland), but could not tolerate other brands and flavors of Socialism like Trotskyism because they offered genuine Marxist alternatives to the Party line. We're watching the same dynamic at work in today's GOP: If you're not a True Conservative, you are a RINO, or worse, an (ugh) Establishment Moderate. The more extreme a faction gets, the less tolerant it is of even the slightest deviation from its program.

As for your final definition, It is really a bit too restrictive. One can be an atheist (that is, reject the traditional idea of godhead, a divine Boss who gives orders, kicks ass, and takes names) and still concede that intelligence, consciousness and Mind may play some role in the evolution of the cosmos. If natural processes in the universe can produce self-conscious sentient beings, why can't the universe itself be achieving some form of consciousness and self-awareness?

Sure, its just a speculation. But all discussions about religion are speculations. There is no such thing as theology.