My grasp on scientific terminology is limited so forgive the simple verbiage.

The argument is that if there is no god or master plan regarding humanity (or life in general I suppose) then we are merely the sum of matter and energy. This implies that when we make a 'decision' we are not actually expressing free will or choice. Basically, if all we are is matter and energy responding to external stimulus that the choice we make is determined before we make it. We are incapable of making a choice outside that which our chemical make up and interpretation of experiences decides for us.

So far as I can tell, this is supposed to be a blow to the atheist ideal and show that atheism is merely the proof of absence of free will. This is a pretty offensive idea because we generally cling to our choices as meaningful. My instinct is (and I responded accordingly) to rebel from such an idea and to defend the idea that I make my own choices and that I am not a drone.

Really though this breaks down into a semantic discussion at least in so far as I can tell. What we really begin to ask is 'what exactly is free will'? The argument for the absence of free will promotes that we are trapped to do as we would do and the choice is made before we make it. That each decision is merely the end result of our brains responding to stimulus filtered through our experience and the most advantageous decision is chosen.

Fair enough.

But from my angle, we are still making the choice. What am I if not the sum of matter and energy? What do we call this process of my brain responding to stimulus and making the most advantageous decision? If we don't want to call it free will I suppose that's not unreasonable but I would consider it free will. After all there is no external force making the decision for me. There is nothing outside myself using me as a puppet. When the decision is made it is a function of my mentality. Can't I consider that free will? When my chemicals and energy come to a consensus isn't that a choice being made...by me? I think it is.

The heart of the free will discussion is really about whether or not there is a purpose to life, whether or not there is a plan being enacted by an all powerful being. I make the clarification that it is an outside force because I think it is relevant to the discussion. I do not consider natural forces within myself to be capable of denying me my freedom to choose. They are in fact the forces that I use to choose.

Free will is merely a phrase that we have grown to love and don't want it tarnished by breaking it down to a molecular level. Even after it is broken down to the molecular level though, it is still not changed. We are beings roaming around living our lives. As beings we make the best choices possible. The fact that this process is made by a complicated process and one that goes on without our prompting or permission does not change the fact that it is still ourselves making the choices.

The existentialist viewpoint is very much in line with what we are discussing. They believe that there is no outside source, that the absence of the outside source leaves our existence meaningless. It is true, that there is no inherent meaning to our lives. It is only meaningful in so far as we make it so.