The problem here is that you're using "free will" in a weird way. While lots of people who haven't thought about the question think libertarian free will makes sense, and lots of religious philosophers think libertarian free will makes sense, it's definitely not a prevailing view amongst non-religious people who've thought about free will to any great extent. You're ignoring the philosophical literature (about two thousand years worth, in fact), the various posts made on Less Wrong about the subject, and the general consensus of professional philosophers (at least non-religious ones) (who may or may not be a relevant reference class).

Two straw men indeed.

It's as though you've made a post arguing that "Calcium" doesn't exist since obviously it refers to its linguistic roots in alchemy, and scientists should get right on finding out what Calcium really is, and you don't know why anyone thinks that's a silly suggestion.

I don't think anyone here thinks the neuroscience of decision-making is not a fruitful path of research, but this post did nothing of the sort. If you have interesting results to share from your work in that field, please do so - I'm sure there are several other readers who work in the same sort of field who would like to compare notes.