Except whether or not there is free will has nothing to do with what you want. In fact, if there's no free will, it's not really up to you whether or not you will accept it: the atoms in your body, reacting to the atoms they've come in contact with, which were reacting to atoms before that, will move in such a way that you either do or do not accept the premise.
Whether or not there is free will says nothing of the existence of higher powers - in fact, I find it less likely, not more likely, that free will exists if there is no god. Without a god, I see no reason why we should consider ourselves immune to the machinations that other animals are subject to. If you'd prefer to believe that other animals have free will too, I see no reason to consider animals immune to the machinations that trees are subject to. Finally, if you prefer to consider all life has free will, I see no evidence that life is subject to different laws of physics - action and reaction - than rocks. The planets did not choose to exist, they are merely the result of billions of years of action and reaction taking place since the big bang. Life, it seems to me, is also the result of a very complex series of actions and reactions taking place on this planet - and beyond. Whether I want this to be the case really has nothing to do with it at all.
Like I said earlier though, it doesn't really matter. Considering the very real possibility that free will does not exist really does nothing for us other than provide an interesting exercise in thought. We're not truly capable of comprehending the absence of free will in the first place, and we don't have any choice other than to keep on existing. Whether one believes in free will or not, we will all live our life as if our will is free, because our bodies - the result of billions of years of action and reaction in the form of evolution - know no other way to exist.*
----
Addendum: Quantum physics does add a new consideration to the issue, but one would more accurately describe the results of quantum physics as
random will, not free will. This randomness may be just enough to keep us thinking our will is free.
There is also the theory of compatibilism, which posits that free will and determinism can, in fact, coexist. I've only just begun to consider the arguments for this approach, but I will say I've found them generally unconvincing so far.
----
* Interestingly, I popped over to Wikipedia's extensive entry on free will and saw that "psychologists have shown that reducing a person's belief in free will makes them less helpful and more aggressive." It seems to indicate that the consideration of such things may be inherently detrimental to our existence, which of course provides a possible reason we cannot truly conceive of human life without free will. It is also the reason that I give no consideration to the subject outside of discussions such as this: as interesting as it is to think about free will, I recognize that belief in free will is an important part of our existence. To the degree that I can shut off the fact I am unconvinced of its existence, I do, and I freely (hah!
) suggest that others do the same.