I would think freethinker would imply that you a free to not randomly believe things for no reason, but I guess it would also imply that you can if you felt like it...

OED:
free-thinker
"One who refuses to submit his reason to the control of authority in matters of religious belief; a designation claimed esp. by the deistic and other rejectors of Christianity at the beginning of the 18th c."

I like this word.

I have stopped using the word atheist for several reasons. First, it is uninformative. Not believing in gods is not a guarantee of rationality. I could be a dyed-in-the-wool faithhead (to use Dawkins' lovely phrase) with respect to Scientology or Buddhism and still be technically an atheist.

Second, no-one describes himself as an aunicornist, an abansheeist, an afairyist, an aboddhisatvist, or an adragonist. Singling out atheism as a stance worth mentioning gives undeserved credence to the notion that belief in gods is somehow less absurd than belief in dragons and fairies.

Third, why would I stop at describing only (a tiny subset of) what I do not believe in? Instead, I can say I am a naturalist, which says something positive about my views on epistemology. I can also describe myself as a secular humanist, in which case I am making a statement about not only epistemology but values as well. Why stop at "atheist"?

I usually have to tell them a few ideas then explain them...

Using the terms the way RRS defines them I'm an agnostic atheist who is anti-theist about some gods. Agnostic in that I can't prove non-existence, Atheist in that I don't believe in gods, and Anti-theist about the ones that are defined in a contradictory manner. And that doesn't even get into other ideas...

Maybe I'll just say "I'm a philosopher and hold many views here is my book that explains it all" (I wrote a book that I keep in my back pocket in this reality)

Idea! anti-bullshitist

Of course you then have do say what is bullshit and why your idea isn't bullshit, fights begin and then the cops wonder how all the bullshit got started to begin with. Then we are right back where we started and I think my point could be made with one three word question...

C'mon now, let's be honest enough to admit that the word atheist has a much scarier and negative connotation to the Christian then the word "secular humanist."

How so?

Here's dictionary.com's definition of atheist:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

They are similar. I really don't have a problem with either.

You're jumping through hoops to rationalize your lack of utilization of a word that perfectly describes you. There are hundreds of thousands of items that one can be irrational about or towards, the notion that "freethinker" excludes two of those irrationalities, so the term is more fitting is a rationalization on your part to steer clear of the word atheist. We learned above that freethinkers are aligned with deists, so there is a big irrationality right there to add to the freethinker list. But rationalize away my friend, cool by me.

I'd reckon the amount of freethinker psychopaths and those that are atheist are likely almost the exact same number.

You just told us that you use the term secular humanist is more in your face than the word atheist. Now you're invoking, PR?! You're making my point here. As you rationalize below that the world you live in, "secular humanist" carries a more negative connotation than the word atheist. What world is that exactly?

Not at all. I stopped using atheist when I realized I did not need it. There is only one situation that is ever likely to arise where the word atheist is needed:

Q: Are you an atheist?
A: Of course I am an atheist.

Other than that, no need. Think about it:

Q: What is your religion?
A: I don't believe in fairy tales. (A more comprehensive reply than "I am an atheist".)

Q: Do you believe in God?
A: No. Don't be silly. ("No, I'm an atheist" would be redundant.)

Q: So where do you lot get your morality if you don't believe in [insert fairy tale]?
A: We secular humanists use reason and compassion to judge what is moral. [It is much harder to speak for all atheists because they come in so many sizes and shapes.]

But yes, I do also have a personal distaste for the word atheist. Why should I define my views in the language of someone else's delusion? I am the normal one; it is the theists who have a memetic disease.

I am not avoiding "atheist". When asked whether I am an atheist, I say "Of course I am an atheist". In most other situations there is a better word, a more descriptive one (although "freethinker" in most cases is not it).

I wonder how many people associate freethought with deism except in historical contexts. If many do, then it is a problem.

Yes, thank you for elucidating my point. The psycopath objection to "freethinker" applies equally well to "atheist", but the non-theist woo-woo objection only applies to "atheist". (The deist objection, of course, is still relevant to freethinker.)

A clarification of the point I am arguing seems in order. My case against "atheist" is not that it is not provocative enough but that there are in most cases words (like naturalist or secular humanist) that are more to the point. As Mike seemed to misunderstand my point as "atheist is too explicit", I explained that this is not so and that I am perfectly happy to use explicit language to describe my views.

Leda, did you see the OED definition posted:

OED:
free-thinker
"One who refuses to submit his reason to the control of authority in matters of religious belief; a designation claimed esp. by the deistic and other rejectors of Christianity at the beginning of the 18th c."

It would seem that onelook needs to add to the entry, but apparently deists can be considered freethinkers.

I concur, you've found a discrepancy.