That is completely untrue. Determinismspecifically means that the outcome is completely bound by causality. If the outcome is completely predictable, then you most certainly cannot avoid it. It means that you can’t break free from the tracks.
First, I don’t think that accountability means “blame.” We have punishments for crimes because brains are cause-and-effect machines, and letting a brain know that there will be certain effects of the various options it’s considering is what’s going on with punishment. This all assumes a brain that takes inputs and generates a determined output. If there is free will, then punishment doesn’t seem to make sense (to me).
If there is no free will, then it makes so sense to say that you must do anything other than what you do, in fact, do. Whatever you actually do, you did it because you were determined to do so.
How do you make a choice? Is it influenced by external circumstances and whatever ratio of certain chemicals are flowing through your brain, with the additional possibility of neurons randomly firing information? If you answered:
Yes - This is a combination of determinism and, to a lesser extent, randomness.
No - I have no idea. A wizard did it?
As I understand it, philosophers distinguish between compatibilist and incompatibilist views of free will. The compatibilists have a definition of free will that is comptabilbe with determinism.
That doesn’t make free will logically incoherent; it just means you can’t reconcile it with the other beliefs you hold.
What does it mean to call it a “religious belief” (other than to indicate your scorn of it)?
As I have said before in these kinds of threads, it is obvious to me that we have either free will, or the illusion of free will. Further, I’m not sure how one could distinguish which of these (the actual or the illusory) is truly the case, by means of logic or evidence.
Sometimes, I glide through life on autopilot, but there certainly are times when it appears to me as though I have a choice to make, and that, though my choosing may be influenced by various factors, it is not determined before I make it: that it is within my power to choose alternative A or to choose alternative B.
I do not understand this.
If there is no free will then punishment would seem to make no sense since you had zero control over what was going to happen.
If you have free will then you are able to make choices. That choice includes considering the consequences of your choice. So punishment makes perfect sense.
Your choice is NOT predetermined by your past experience/programming. Certainly it effects it. Past experiences inform us on how to make future decisions. When you are a kid you may stick your finger in a candle flame. Having no previous experience you do not know this is a bad idea. Once you have that experience, upon seeing more candles, you are not likely to stick your finger in the flame because you know the results. You could stick your finger in the flame anyway if you wanted to though. That I can predict you are unlikely to stick your finger in the flame does not preclude you from doing it. I just assign a high probability to you not doing it.
Same with the money. I assign a high probability that someone would grab the $100. Doesn’t mean they have to though.
It occurred to me after I posted that more than a few around here might opt to punch me in the face rather than shake my hand. 
I believe this is a reasonable view of “free will”:
and
I’m talking about the freedom to make choices without outside force or control. Maybe someone needs to define what “free” in “free will” actually means? Perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
It sees a bar code, and it makes a choice when it identifies what that barcode is. It can display any price of any item in it’s database, but it chooses the correct one through internal processing/evaluation. It is free since it is allowed to operate without interferance. If I were to interfere with (ie hack into) it’s internal circuitry so that it under/overcharged, then it would no longer be free.
Defining the PURPOSE of blame is extraordinarily important. Do you want to lay blame, so that you can most efficiently make changes to the system for the purposes of improvement? Ted Bundy is dangerous - but was he to blame? This is important, because the purpose of blame, in this case, is to improve our safety. With this purpose in mind, we conclude that he is to blame, and thus we will remove him from society. If it turns out pornography is also to blame, as he claimed, then we should act to regulate pornography. Whether you do or do not believe in free will is completely irrelevant when it comes to blame. (edit)
Are those natural inputs into the system, or are they “hacks”? They are natural, and therefore do not affect free will or the freedom to choose.
Predictability has nothing to do with it. The will can’t be free because something has to cause it. It doesn’t matter if those causes are predictable or not. The essential point is that the will can’t be self determining.
We don’t need to ponder any concept of “blame” in order to impose consequences. Consequences are part of what affects will.
Cause what?
It’s also not really free will.
I didn’t express any beliefs. Free will simply can’t be reconciled with logic.
It means that it’s a faith belief. A belief unsupported by evidence. Can you prove that free will exists? If not, then it’s a religious belief.
Cause the will. “Will” is purely an effect, not a cause.
Explain to me the logic in the suggestion that all beliefs unsupported by evidence are specifically religious in nature.
My previous example was a system or “mechanical machinery” that is the mind. This has inputs, and outputs. The will is in the mechanical machinery, and it is free if it is not affected by outside influences, other than the specified inputs. The output is the result of the will. Are you claiming that the output IS the will? More specifically I believe the will is the processing itself, and the machinery itself is “the mind”.
As I said before, I know of no way of proving, or deciding on the basis of evidence and/or logic, whether free will exists or is an illusion. If I believe in free will, I guess it’s fair to call that a faith belief; butso, I think, would believing that it’s an illusion. Either way, if free will is an illusion, I didn’t choose which to believe; my belief was determined by some prior cause.
What does this mean? Does this mean whether or not our actions are “up to us”? Well of course they are. Without the mental machinery in our minds, we wouldn’t get any results. In order to go from inputs to outputs, you need the processing stage in between.