—But the fact remains that they have their share of whole-cloth hand-stabbing dyed-in-the-wool jerks, like the American Atheists.—
I agree, AA is a pretty nasty organization.
By the way, what IS “hand-stabbing”? I’ve never heard that before: is it anything like “foot-shooting”?
If so I’m not sure WHO they are hand-stabbing, other than themselves.
—The intellectual interpretation is, in fact, irrelevant.—
Well, not if it could lead different people to radically different thoughts.
I agree, and it seems that most instances of jerkiness are really just instances in which somebody is behaving stupidly and/or is having their intentions be misunderstood. When I say that I’ve met one or two atheists who have revelled in jerkiness, I mean that they recognized that they were being jerks, and were proud of the fact (“It’s my right to be malicious”). If that tally had included people who behaved like jerks and were unapologetic after their jerkiness was made clear to them, as well as people who behaved like jerks without thinking that they were behaving like jerks, as well as people who behaved like jerks but were at least a bit ashamed about the fact, then that “one or two” count would have been depressingly higher, and would have included atheists and Christians (and Muslims and Jews etc.).
Excellent points, Apos, and you caught me on a detail, too. Although we’re in substantive agreement about the OP, I’m going to take one more shot at the details of my POV.
I disagree with the first sentence on its face, but am with you indeed on the second, with maybe a subtle tweaking. And Libertarian brought up what I think is an excellent example on both points: (many of)the American Atheists. To your first assertion, they have what would be hard not to describe as an atheist creed (expressed here in a court brief, but how secular can you get?). To the second, I don’t think anyone participating in this thread doubts that many non-theists–including some rather jerky AAs–attempt to speak for every agnostic/UU/atheist without regard for the many shades of (non)belief these groups and individuals represent, or that it’s as abhorrent a practice as when the same is perpetrated by theists. I just don’t care to use as broad a brush in applying it.
Here’s where you got me. I’m easily persuaded that there are deistic (as you said, likely UU-type) Freethinkers. I took as a definition of thier identity the page What is a Freethinker?. It states, “free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists,” but does not specifically exclude deists, it just repudiates religion. A fine point, but completely valid nontheless. On preparing this reply, I also notice with some irony the phrase “No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah” (emphasis mine) although I think their use of the term “creed” differs in intent from ours herein. 
Gotta disagree here, too. I’d submit that an atheist finds the belief in reason and the evidence perceived by the 5 senses to be the positive/affirmative similarity that binds them. To their view, a Christian, say, belongs to the set of those negatively defined, ie, they don’t ‘believe’ in the supremacy of reason over faith. It’s a case of the label representing the reality, not being the reality, I think.
—To your first assertion, they have what would be hard not to describe as an atheist creed (expressed here in a court brief, but how secular can you get?).—
Depends on what you mean by “atheist creed.” If all you mean is that “it is a creed propagated by some atheists” then I agree. But, if, in keeping with your discussion about a broad atheist creed, it is supposed to mean a creed that has something inherently to do with atheism, then no, that’s fuzzy thinking on their part (its just a LITTLE more fuzzy than particular theists trying to claim that being against interracial marriage is part of “the” a theist creed).
AA clearly thinks the latter is what they are doing. They are DENSE.
—I took as a definition of thier identity the page—
So some people have a page. Good for them. The fact is, freethinkers were stated by groups of people that included deists.
—A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists," but does not specifically exclude deists, it just repudiates religion.—
Taking just the first part, countless Christians could fit comfortably into that definition of freethinker, especially if they are radicals. So this is not the same thing as “repudiating religion.” It’s repudiating religious ideas that are accepted merely by tradition. Whatever any webpage says, the one thing I can say about freethinkers is that almost none of them agree on what a freethinker is.
— I’d submit that an atheist finds the belief in reason and the evidence perceived by the 5 senses to be the positive/affirmative similarity that binds them.—
Try explaining that to non-theistic mystics. Try explaining that to Buddhists. Rationalism is not the same thing as atheism. Not all atheists are freethinkers by the included definition of freethinkers.
—To their view, a Christian, say, belongs to the set of those negatively defined, ie, they don’t ‘believe’ in the supremacy of reason over faith.—
Some Christians DO believe in the supremacy of reason over faith! Certainly many theists do, especially in those religions that don’t put the sort of supremacy on faith that Christians do.
I think this is a flaw with all people who loudly proclaim themselves to be members of a select group: a high number of them will tend to be self-rightous jerks and merely broadcasting their affliation to prove their part of the group that’s “right.”
I’ve fallen into the trap of thinking that they represent the norm too. For a while after hearing a bunch of [insert political affliation] bluster and whine loudly & unrealistically, I decided that all [insert political affliation] were jerks. When I met someone who was a [insert political affliation] and not a jerk, I decided that they were exceptions. Then I eventually realized that not only were a lot more of the people I knew were [insert political affliation] who didn’t feel the need to tell the world about their politics, they thought that the blow-hards in their party were jerks too. I then decided that the jerks who instantly and loudly made it known that they were [insert political affliation] were really the exceptions, and not an accurate gage of the actions and beliefs of others in their party. New rule for me: do not judge a group by its loudest members.