For one thing, most theists do not get much positive or negative feedback from their religion during their current life. For another, many theists claim to act in good ways because they "love God": your son may at some point start doing good because he loves you and knows its what you want, never mind your feedback: this is a step between fear and the high morality. A small number of theists believe in a Universal Moral Code which rules God (or the gods) as well as them and they act according to their understanding of their code. One may also cite Univeralist theists, who believe everyone will go to Heaven but don't(in most cases) take this as a licence for evil...

More empirically, if this was a valid view of theists, one would expect that when a theist became an atheist he would go and committ said crimes: not all the time, because maybe atheism can provide an alternative structure, but some of the times.

As a side note, is spanking one's children really necessary?

As for convincing people, I'm not really sure. I expected more feedback too; mostly positive, or at least aknowledging an understanding. I personally do not really agree with your assessment, but that is simply because I view it as something that CAN'T be argued one way or another in any convincing manner, not that your view is specifically wrong. I think free will is something one can't assail; to claim that free will is nothing more than the outcome of given forces is meaningless, because it means if you are right, then there is no such thing as "right", as all distinctions are merely a matter of input and output, not decisions. Convincing means nothing anymore; it's simply stimuli.

I've always compared it to the metaphysical argument about how all the world could be an illusion, and you would never be able to know the difference. If that's true, then what's the point? Nothing is gained, and it can never be proven anyway, so what has been accomplished? Nothing. It is simply a thought game doing nothing and arriving nowhere. So, I view these two as issues not worth regarding, and although I have followed the discourse simply for curiousity of the outcome, I don't find it convincing of much, because of my own peculiar outlook.

Obviously the Libertarian Freewill-ist isn't going to think that this is good enough. They think that it is simply a counterfeit responsibility which isn't real.

I have no doubt that they would say that, just as theists have told me that self-chosen meaning is not "real" meaning. But in both cases, I would argue that it is a distinction without a difference. If I find something meaningful, then ipso facto, it is meaningful. Similarly, if a person chooses to act or refrain from acting because they are aware that they will be held responsible for it, then they are responsible. In neither case is there a magical missing ingredient.

I've always been amazed by theists who insist that belief in god is necessary to moral behavior. It assumes that without a sky-daddy to spank you for doing something bad or give you a reward for doing something good, there are no reasons to do what is right and refrain from what is wrong. I find this to be somewhat frightening. Are all theists just murdering, stealing, raping, child-molesters without the positive or negative feedback of their religion? And, if so, how does that make them any more mature than my 6-year-old, who acts according to the consequences and not his conscience.

http://stopthatcrow.blogspot.com/2006/04/freewill-in-virtual-world.html

I also think that a constructivist account of responsibility holds the most promise, but I wish you could have fleshed out your ideas a little more, especially this sentence:

"I propose that we hold people responsible for their behavior because that is how they actually become responsible."

Obviously the Libertarian Freewill-ist isn't going to think that this is good enough. They think that it is simply a counterfeit responsibility which isn't real.