Help me refute the "suffering will be insignificant in heaven" theodicy

[HappySkeptic]

The more theologically-minded Christians tend to go for the second version. Dante, for example, describes it this way. He explains why the suffering one had endured in life will be of no consequence in heaven.

The best book I know for a readable explanation of both versions is The Great Chain of Being by Lovejoy. It's probably better to get an in-depth knowledge of what Christians say before doing a refutation.

So, if one rejects what the bible actually claims (a physical body, though one uncorrupted by original sin and therefore immortal) then one is rejecting a strawman?

This seems like special pleading.  If atheists reject what Christianity actually teaches, we just aren't reading the right authors.  Others will have much more "refined" beliefs that aren't so ridiculous, and atheists are therefore incorrect in rejecting these more intellectual revisions of Christianity.  The problem is that one can always "refine" a religion to worm away from criticisms by choosing from an endless collection of alternatives.  Such construction is not a path to truth, unless it is backed up by evidence.  Even science can suffer from this malady.

Anyone can have their own ideas about heaven and hell, and they are entitled to them.  There is no evidence of either things existing, but go crazy with your imagination.  That doesn't mean atheists have to consider every possible conception before rejecting the whole idea.