Human Intelligence is an Illusion

[Angrboda]

Let me say then instead that in my experience in discussing matters of philosophy with atheists, particularly with respect to matters related to libertarian free will,  the way they commonly describe or utilize the word intelligence is consistent with "the ability to consciously reason in a manner independent from deterministic factors". This, therefore has been the word I have chosen to describe this capacity. I am hoping to move past semantic issues so I can make clear my underlying point.

Well, fine, but then you're equivocating because you aren't talking about intelligence but something else, the details of which are far from clear, as are the reasons that anyone should care. It sounds like you are simply broadening the scope of will to include things that ordinarily wouldn't be considered inclusive. What you're doing is similar to people who posit that the unthinking universe is God. Well, that's fine if you want to use words that way, but all you've really done is create an arbitrary new name for something we already have words for. Doing so accomplishes nothing.

I can confidently say that Atheists cannot logically accept that the universe has libertarian free will (or intelligence as it is used in that context) because that would be belief in a god.

No, it wouldn't. There are Buddhist atheists who believe in libertarian free will. Nothing to do with god. Even metaphysical naturalism is not an absolute bar to belief in libertarian free will, only that no account consistent with metaphysical naturalism appears on offer. But that's a moot point, as atheism doesn't obligate you to subscribe to metaphysical naturalism. As a side note, if this is an example of something you assert with confidence, that doesn't bode particularly well for any of your other ideas.

Yet at the same time your typical Atheist (from what I can determine) wants to feel that they are the masters of their own destiny. That they can make conscious choices that are not dictated by deterministic factors).  If a decision is made outside of their conscious awareness then there is no way to be certain that the decision was arrived at through libertarian free will or processing based entirely on deterministic factors. Since I have demonstrated that all decisions are arrived at outside the realm of conscious awareness, how can one claim they are the masters of their own destiny if they are not even conscious of when, how, or by who or what those decisions are made. If those processes are free thinking in nature then that free thinking quality is not sourced in that persons conscious mind, but in an independent consciousness that operates outside of the awareness of their own (you see this is where semantics can get tricky). If I say I have libertarian free will and my choices are made before I am aware of them, then I (my conscious sense of self) did not initiate nor determine the method for arriving at those choices. The libertarian free agency is sourced outside of my conscious mind which precludes me as a conscious identity from being the master of my own destiny.

This seems a question having to do with the meaning of free will, and having nothing to do with intelligence. And it's not even necessarily valid as compatibilistic accounts of free will dodge all your objections. There is nothing about atheism that obligates an atheist to deny compatibilism. That in itself is sufficient to unlink this nonsense from anything having to do with atheism, but as noted, atheism doesn't commit one to metaphysical naturalism, nor does metaphysical naturalism necessarily preclude libertarian free will, so this package is pretty much a total failure. And I don't know whether it was this thread or not, but you seem to be making a necessary connection betweeen conscious choice and self identity. That's highly speculative at best, and likely incomplete at worst. Problems sourcing identity and self in consciousness alone have a long history in the literature.

Just a question to everyone When you use the word "I" precisely what are you identifying as you? Particularly in the context of making choices? There's a lot of ways a person can identify their perceived nature of self.

I could tell you what I consider the 'I' or self to be, but since the answer would involve personal theoretical ideas about it, I doubt it would have much practical value in this discussion, other than to say that it doesn't appear to align with yours. There is basically little or no commitment to any specific theory of self based on atheism, so you're likely to get as many answers as there are people. I don't see how that would be of any practical value.