No, this is not the same thing you have in mind. You are not arguing for a different concept of  causality but for deterministic, linear causality(i.e. for each event there must be a cause and that all causal relations must follow a temporal sequence.) If you are foregoing the "arrow of time," then you are opening a whole new set of problems with major metaphysical implications.

Agreed.

I'll define the basic terms in the philosophical discussion of free will.

compatibilism = the view that "free will" is compatible with determinism.

incompatibilism = the view that "free will" is incompatible with determinism.

liberterianism = the view that "free will" is incompatible with determinism with the implication that given the same situation and circumstances an agent could have chosen otherwise.

The conventional understanding of free will is libertarianism. Most individuals actually believe they could have chosen otherwise (this is why they have regrets and experience guilt). The atheist is obligated by his philosophical commitment to materialism to deny libertarianism.

Incidentally, there are forms of theological determinism (e.g. Calvinsim). 

I disagree. Just because atheists have not reflected on the intricacies of this does not mean it is meaningless. It just means they haven't thought through the implications of their worldview. And I am here to point some of these things out.

I know what atheists mean when they identify themselves as freethinkers. However, I am here to point out that their worldview does not actually permit themselves to classify themselves literally as "free thinkers."

The truth of the matter is that determinism actually implies pantheism, not atheism. Why? Because all intentional acts must be explained in terms of deterministic, physical causation. Therefore, logic dictactes that either infinite causality is expressing intelligence (because all events are determined by infinite causality) or else there is no intelligence in the world. To argue the latter presupposes intelligence; therefore, infinite causality must be intelligent (this is pantheism).

To begin with, in my OP of this thread, I did not argue for or against free will. I simply argued that there can be no "free thinkers" without free will.  

Having said that, and assuming that determinism is valid, then I basically agree with items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, (not 8 ), 9, 10, and 11.

I am not saying I necessarily disagree with this statement. I am simply not sure what you are saying here. "Multiple realities" are all ours? What does this mean?

Items 12 and 13 are not really relevant to this thread. Be that as it may, I would agree with 12. I do not agree with 13. Number 13 is actually contradictory. If determinism is true, then there are no random events.

If quantum indeterminacy is true, then science has evidence that physical events are occurring without physical cause. Atheistic materialism is incapable of accounting for uncaused events. (Actually, uncaused events invalidates materialism.) Also, there is scientific evidence that all mass/energy reduces to a quantum vacuum (essentially nothing). That virtual particles are popping in and out of existence smacks of creation ex nihilo. What do you think?

I am not here to argue the "Christian God." That being said, determinism is not necessarily incompatible with certain forms of Christianity (e.g. it is my understanding that Calvinism teaches "compatibilism" ).

Also, pantheism is compatible with determinism.

There is evidence for free will. It's called "first-person experience." And the fact that you expressed "hope that you may change your path" leads me to believe that you have this first-person experience too. Free will may will be illusory but the onus is upon you to dispel the myth by providing evidence that it does not exist. 

Forgetting the fact that you are blithley making unsupported assertions (you didn't cite a source). This doesn't prove anything.

If determinism is true, then there is no separate "you" and "me." The only thing exercising intelligence is what you call the "causal chain." That the entire natural process exercises intelligence implies pantheism, not atheism. Remember, deterministic materialism implies that eveything that arises in the world is the result of the natural process playing itself out. IOW, naturual causation is responsible for the development of planes, trains, and automobiles. Moreover, determinisim actually implies some kind of anthropic principle because the fact that we are here discussing this matter could not have been otherwise.

Would you rather that I sing "I am the Walrus" like you?

http://www.metrolyrics.com/i-am-the-walrus-lyrics-beatles.html

WE ARE ONE !

The Beatles - I Am The Walrus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqOKvonLrH8

Paisley brother , let's have a beautiful song contest !!!

Not at all. It was neither "appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect" (definition 1 from Webster), nor "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made" (definition 2). In fact, I specifically avoided attacking your character. You will note, as I pointed out before, that I referred to perceptions others might hold about your character, and then opined that it might be due to a condition quite outside your control. Neither of these is an attack on your character (both, in fact, quite specifically leave the matter of your actual character completely out of the equation, and make no reference to it), and neither appeals to feelings or prejudices. Rather, I appealed to your understanding that your points are rendered less effective by the prejudices of others, an understanding you demonstrated being capable of having in the other thread, as I indicated.

You've missed the obvious (and I would say likely most often accurate) scenario:

4) You feel threatened by the situation and the sudden, surprising sensation of pain, and your reptile brain spins up the 'fight' reaction in response to the unknown. Now, once you're angry, and realize what's happened, this can easily transition into (2), but that's really more of a 'I have this anger, now what do I *do* with it?' reaction from the higher brain, as a mechanism for dealing with the physical stress that results from the chemical/hormonal component of the reptile brain's immediate reaction. The actual threat perceived is exactly not that: perceived. The perception of 'threat' comes from the very unexpected nature of the event, and the triggered emotional and chemical/hormonal response is a response to unknown danger, albeit a danger the reptile brain assesses as 'low risk', or we'd react by fleeing from the table.

Which, I admit, would be damned funny to see.

Once more, I can only interact with the reality I perceive. If I invest those perceptions with no trust or confidence, then there is no belief engendered by taking a position of 'If what I perceive is real, then I perceive myself to hold this opinion. However, I cannot find cause to actively assert that either my perception of reality, or my perception of my own opinions, are true. I may be wrong.'

We've also covered that I tend to not complicate my style of prose by incorporating the full disclaimer into every statement, especially given that all of these statements are, or seem to be, made within the context of the perceptions of reality that I cannot place any confidence, trust, or faith in.

Really, Paisley, I accept that you're going to keep trying this tactic, but I would have to say it seems likely that it's going to continue to not be terribly effective.

Thanks for your reply.  I'm sorry to hear about your job--I've been there.