For anything I believe, if there is a necessary relationship between my belief and the reasons and evidence for my belief then my belief is determined by the reasons and evidence. If not then either my belief just randomly corresponds to the reasons and evidence (but might not do tomorrow) or I am believing freely in response to the arguments and evidence but could believe the negation despite the arguments and evidence. The same would hold for things I don't believe (eg, the existence of Darth Vader). Either the lack of evidence and reasons determines my lack of belief (there is a necessary relationship between the two) or I'm just lucky but things could change for no known reason or I could believe despise the lack of evidence. If the latter then nothing prevents me from switching beliefs by definition.
There is no
necessary relationship between a belief and the reasons and evidence for my belief, there is a relationship but it is not necessary.
LFW doesn't require that you be able to disconnect your rational thought process and believe anything to be true. The ability to rationally deliberate is a function of our living in a well ordered universe surrounded by other rational (for the most part) animals. We form and hold beliefs based on that rational thought process.
LFW does not require that there be no such thing as a rational belief held to be true. We see this all the time when beliefs change simply as a result of reconsidering the reasons and evidence by thought process (no further information presented, just ruminating on what was already taken in).
This is a very typical atheist trick when it comes to "refuting LFW", it goes along the lines of:
1. You can't stop doing 'X'
2. Therefore you are determined in doing 'X'
'X' has taken on many different forms, "can't stop saving your child from torture", "can't leave your hand in the fire" this latest from emuse is just "can't stop believing a thing is true if your thought process came to that conclusion."