I'm always baffled by the low standards some people have when it comes to calling other people "friends".

Without getting into too much detail:

Even within the confines of physical sciences, there is wiggle room. According to concepts such as chaos theory, the future is not predetermined even when only considering physical laws. When taken to their logical conclusions, these principles basically mean that something as seemingly minor as some neural activity is both undetermined and potentially highly influential on surrounding conditions.

On the other hand, if God is omnipotent and omniscent, he basically runs the entire show, leaving no room for free will. Unless he were to make the metaphorical rock too heavy to lift, which is another can of worms.

this mistrust of atheists for this reason is pretty rooted in a lot of christians are far as I've seen. My parents know I'm an atheist and never bother me about it, but they do admit that they couldn't see themselves voting an atheist in as president, and that's probably partially because of this idea that atheists have lesser morals.

I don't understand why free will can't exist within the bounds of chemistry, physics, and science in general.  We may not understand how free will comes about from those things yet as the brain is an amazingly complex system, but there is certainly no requirement that if you don't believe in god the only alternative is fatism in which you have no free choice.  The difference between a religious person's idea of free will and mine is simply how they arise.  The religious person thinks that free will and higher thinking in general comes from the divine, where as I think it's a consequence of having a more highly adapted network of neurons in the brain.  

Interestingly this was my exact reaction to the OP as well

Well he is wrong.

He can say that at least Neo Nazi's believe in something.......but that said, that is still grossly inappropriate and has 0 bearing on morality.

One of my "friends" (for his protection, let's call him Bob) had known me for years before he had his talk with me. Bob was the guy who taught me how to catch a football (non-Americans should read that as "handegg"). He helped me out when I was wet and miserable while camping in the rain. Bob helped convince me that I was smart and kind enough to teach Cub Scouts to do things like tie knots and perform basic first aid. And I helped Bob too. I helped him learn things for classes, was eager to give him a hand when he was working on a two-man job, etc. And we spent a fair amount of time discussing things like literature, nature, and the joy of altruism.

When I told Bob I was an atheist, I was not telling some stranger I met an hour ago. I was telling someone I had known, relied on, and trusted for literally years.

And he told me I was going to burn forever and would deserve it too.

I needed that.

Hah. No worries on that. I don't even let anyone touch my computer if I'm not right next to them. 

hmm.. i dont know. i still believe its a hard sell that you can have free will in a world view that says there is nothing outside our physical existance. 

there is also determinism as well which is the philosophy that i am pretty much saying is in line with this world view. anyway, as i mentioned in my original reply, i think that people would be able to construct a society and be able to determine what behaviors would be morally acceptable and what behaviors would be morally unacceptable, although these standards would be subject and relative to the society, so even then there is no absolute standard of right and wrong. in any case, i think what your proposing (high complexity in the brain) doesnt give way to free will, it gives way to contemplating the idea of right or wrong and constructing a society and therefore, constructing a moral code. again, i dont really think that means that people are completely free to follow it or not, but for the purposes of the betterment of everybody's living space, you can make people abide by it.