Yeah sort of!  There is no such thing as absolute free will. Free will is the ability to act upon your motivations, or not. It's the free choice in a limited extent.

As an Atheist, from my point of view, good and bad are just relative terms with no line to be drawn in between.  Logically a christian would have to say there is only good and evil and there is a line. But their whole premise is bogus from the git-go because their  God is always going against himself. And some nutbag christians will tell you that a "true Christian" is not capable of going against god, therefore they cannot go against themselves since the Holy spirit is in them. This is nothing short of retarded. And is also how they justify the actions of all the criminals like David, Solomon, and the list goes on and on.

Consider this website a test, not of your faith, but of your ability to reason.

Why do you believe free will exists?

Do you believe free will is absolute?

Are you doing your thinking by your own free will?!  Do you have the option of not thinking?

Anyways, just for the record I'm inclined to follow Kant on ethics. 

((Hey again everyone, I have GOT to remember to come here more often, amazed to see how far its gone and what directions its travelled in))

Well, that gives some of an answer, but then it brings up some other questions. The first one would then be if that would mean that in essence

What God Loves=Good

What God doesn't love=Bad

The problem with this though is that for one thing it makes morality rather subjective, in that your deity could change its position on something (see also contradictions in the bible) which would mean that an action that was formerly moral is no longer. There's also the rather troubling issues in the area of Divine Command, since in essence if we (humanity) take all of our morality from an ancient book then we leave our moral compasses in the hands of the interpreters, which we can see don't agree on very much at all givne the rather grand plethora of sects of Christianity. This doesn't even factor in the problem of other religions possibly being the correct one as well. I'd also comment that if we accept my formula as accurate (it may not be what you mean, if so clarification would be helpful) we then can go back to the Euthyphro to see a problem. Is something good because God loves it or does God love it because it's good. If somethings inherent goodness or evil is dependent on Gods feelings for it at that time then we either have to believe that morality is inherently very plastic and based entirely on deific whim and the new words of prophets or we have to agree that in fact slavery, child abuse, etc. are good and moral things. If something is loved by God because it is good then that would make the concepts of good and evil disconnected from God, or at least God him/her/itself would not be necessary for such concepts to exist.

As to morality existing independently of a divine being that isn't all that difficult. You could use the argument of enlightened self preservation where I don't harm you because doing so could put me at risk and because I don't want you or those connected to you to decide to harm me. I could point to animals in the wild that pursue altruistic behavior as a means of advancement within their group, implying that altruism and things we might view as 'good' are in fact evolutionary traits that helped humans get to their position in the environment.

Now, also, more than humans would have to have the ability to go against God, as the snake in the garden was apparently able to as well. If we follow Christian doctrine that the snake was the devil then that in turn would imply that evil existed before 'the fall' and that other beings had free will. If Angels and other such beings lack free will then apparently what happened was not sinful or bad behavior which kind of throws your whole genesis thing for a loop. Now if you look at it as more a metaphor for something, that's fine, but at the very least the story has some rather large problems if you want to make a coherent morality tale out of it.

One of my missions here is to remove all mythology from any scientific or philosophical discussions. Free will and many other discussions often associated with religious thought are perfectly defensable by deductions based on first principles alone.

Biblical accounts are mythology. People who defend themselves with mythology when faced with scientific or philosophical problems are just fooling themselves, and have little or no sense of reality.

My defense of free will as solely a state of relative freedom still stands. I don't believe in the determinism of human consicience, it doesn't make any sense when I analyse my self, my thoughts and my behavior.

Absolute free will is just a non logical concept even in theoretical terms.

Did you have free will to choose your parents? If so did you choose your parents because of their DNA? Their parents? Their wealth?

Did you have free will to choose what you ate this morning? Or were you limited to what was in the kitchen? If you decided to eat what was in the kitchen was it free will to be lazy? or because you didn't have a car and you might have had to walk to the store in the snow? If you weighed all those options and others was it your genetics which said "man I'm hungry screw going to the store" or was it your up-bringing which made you say the same thing? or maybe it was your experiences in college which taught you handle your time in a different more efficient manner?

Free will is an illusion.

More to the point, if the christian god created a being capable of committing evil acts, then wasn't the act of creating this being an act of evil?

Also, I feel I should point out that "deterministic" seems to have been double-loaded here.  Physics is "deterministic" in the sense that the future is determined solely by natural laws + previous state of the system.  However, it happens that some of these natural laws involve randomness, so physics is not "deterministic" in the sense that a given state of the system necessitates a unique set of future states.  The latter is what philosophers tend to mean when they say "determinism," though I prefer to call it "pre-determinism."

@Teralek.  You should do some serious thinking about the nature of self-analysis before using self-analysis to make conclusions about free will.

Consider for example the case of a computer attempting to determine whether or not it has free will in its response to the call of an algorithm that generates a pseudo-random number.  By what series of querries could this computer determine whether the algorithm represents a choice on the computer's part, a pre-determined process that the computer was simply unable to predict, or a truly random process over which the computer has no control?  What possible self-observations would exclude the second and third possiblities?