You are absolutely right; it is the same dilemma. Naturalist-atheists don't mind if there is no free will though, while religious people would have to question their entire faith. If there is a free will though, then they'd have to question if God truly is almighty or not, which is another dilemma.

Bottom line: In both scerario's the Abrahamic religions makes no sense, as they claim that God is almighty and gave humans free will.

If there's something that I'm missing, feel free to fill me in.

Yes they do. No one acts is if there exists no free will.

If I said I hate a certain race or a certain sexual orientation I would have tons of intellectuals condemn me and try to make me feel bad and guilty. No one, absolutely no one, would say "I understand you, your opinion makes perfect sense for you, you couldn't have any other opinion than what you just expressed. I don't agree with you and I would like to change your opinion but if I can't change it you should feel harmony about the opinion you have, even if I happen to believe it is severely wrong. You are no worse person than me in any way, we are perfectly equal".

If I molested a child no one would explain to me that my action made perfect sense to me and that I have no reason to feel guilt and no reason to be punished.

You just don't feel indifferent to the moral choices (or lack of choices) of a person like Khadaffi and think "I don't condemn any of his actions, he did what he had to do, he couldn't have done anything in any other way". No one does. I have never ever met such a person no matter how non-reglious, scientific or naturalistic they claim to be. No one behaves as if there doesn't exist free will no matter what they claim to believe in theory.

A guy like Dawkins (who claims to be rooted in science and fact, and who probably would support the notion that there isn't proof of free will) constantly walks around and condemns religious people and makes them feel bad (don't try to convince me he only does it for maximum effect to change other people's behaviour, because he also makes a moral judgement).

Btw, Ambrahamic religions do not directly claim that humans have free will. They imply that people have free will, but that's for the reader to interpret. There are theologians and followers of Abrahamic religions who believe everything is pre-determined and known by God, but for some reason God put this show in motion and we as human individuals have to act through this theater of life until the end, no matter how meaningless it might appear.

Now you have.

And lots of people around me do. During our philosophy class nearly half of all students believed that everything is determined.

Wait, didn't you read my post properly? I said to live and act as if there is no free will, to live and act as if everything is pre-determined..

There are many people who take pride in their belief that there is no free will (which is easy), but they don't act as if there exists not free will (which is extremely hard).

A naturalist-atheist, who doesn't have any responsibilities in life, outside of taking care for themselves,and does not worrying about society and how people do things can end up not minding the lack of free will.  The entire structure of society, with criminal laws and so on, and defense of "freedom" is based upon free will existing.  Take away this belief, and it is the end of laws that end up providing structured consequences for certain behaviors.  On the other end, it opens up prospects of a Totalitarian state where the best minds are supposed to make all decisions, and you fall under a society developed by Behavioralists on top, who end up believing the system needs to be structured in order to generate predictable outcome.  You are read as a nerve cell is read by the body, IF lucky, but things are done in a mass scale, implementing the moral conclusions of determinism.  It is usually done on a mass manner, easier to implement.  So, a society at least believe in a fiction of free will, in order to have some freedom, or freedom in all situations will be thrown overboard, whenever faced with something else.  A byproduct of this is a cencored Internet, and how things are in China.

What you miss here is the prospects of an almighty God giving people free will, which in reality here is restrained somehow, because no one has totally free will in life, because they are bound by certain necessities.  If such a God ends up knowing everything, and can do anything, it doesn't necessarily follow that God wants every single thing, at all times, to line up just the right way in correspondence with the wishes of them.  Such a God may want to have a system that can grow and mature on its own, that he can stand back and watch.  Actually, come to think of it, you are missing one of the usually key elements that usually come up when trying to say God exists.  That is one of motive.  It is supposed to be: If God is almight, all knowing, and all loving, then why is there evil in the world?  Take out the motive factor, and you still can explain it.  Without this, how do you know things aren't the way God exactly wants them now?  And if they are, then there is no issue here.

One think that is an issue here, is that you presume that people actually care what you think or don't think, and presume that other care to bother to persuade you are wrong.  Or the care to bother to have their faith questioned.  Why is someone going to care one bit what you think.  You, as is I guess typical of people who post on the Internet, are totally devoid of knowing what motivates people.  

As for why the idea of Jesus and the religion of Christianity being spread, well, at its core is love actually, in the commands, the idea is one of salvation for people.  It offers, by numerous means, commands, and so on, the ability to change lives.  And if you care about people, and have the means to help, you can then do help.  It is done through people, because people are to be elevated to partners with God and see this.  It also offers people the option to say no, and this manifest things.  What I see with you?  You offer people nothing.  You take away.  You end up wanting to undermine and destroy what they have that holds them up, and offer them nothing in their place.  You don't.  If I am going to compare you, or any other stand alone atheist out there, who is on a crusade to deconvert people, to that of genuine people who practice loving faith, to be able to live with, I will go with those of the faith, because I don't see anything you offer of value to humanity.  What you do end up, as a byproduct you don't see, is going to produce a society that ends up demanding more and more government services, to address needs that the churches you had churches torn down, have provided.  And with this, will come people who are paid to do jobs, rather than people driven by love to make a difference in the lives of others.  Of course, you don't see this.  Why would you, a puny mortal be able to see the consequences of your actions.  You just resent that religion has a moral imperative to reach out, and wish what you believe would, so you do it alone.  You are one person on a quest to tip windmills alone.

You know what you remind me of?  You remind me of someone I know of, who became an ex-friend, who yells at the world to vote third party, and goes out to beers to discuss with his associates in a "meeting of the minds".  He then tells me, after I said it is a bit pointless, and I have a lot of issues I need to go through to "quit your whining".  Take that attitude, turn it into a "meeting of the minds" on the Internet, and away we go.   In your case, you end you getting frustrated and wonder why you bother, because the world doesn't go along.  What you end up missing is a key piece of practical reality.  You also miss that someone like myself finds your arguments lacking and understand the basics of how the God of Christianity works, and end up merely refining what I believe by your points.  And in this, this discussion is of benefit to me, before it refines what I believe, and is of value.  But, from your end, it will be an abysmal failure.

I was talking about when you said:

"No one, absolutely no one, would say "I understand you, your opinion makes perfect sense for you, you couldn't have any other opinion than what you just expressed."

And later:

"You just don't feel indifferent to the moral choices (or lack of choices) of a person like Khadaffi and think "I don't condemn any of his actions, he did what he had to do, he couldn't have done anything in any other way". No one does. I have never ever met such a person no matter how non-reglious, scientific or naturalistic they claim to be."

Yet, here I am saying those things.

Bolded: People are responding to this thread, so obviously they do care one way or another. And especially you, who keeps writing essay after essay just to tell me how much you don't.

And you obviously misunderstood my entire purpose with this thread, which I explained earlier. My purpose is to make people understand that there is no such thing as sins. There are laws which should be held up, but unjustified sins (such as being gay and the other things I mentioned a few times earlier in this thread) cause pain all around the world every day. I have even said that I don't mind if people are religious, as long as they just let everyone who isn't live their own lives unaffected by their beliefs (which is the majority, by the way).

Going by the three famous scenarios I mentioned earlier, the best case would be if all who read this thread would choose the "God is almighty and can predict every decision that we'll make, so logically there is no hell"-option. That was my personal opinion before I left Christianity altogether, and it made me realize that sins cannot exist.

Being almighty doesn't mean being able to perform the logically absurd.

If being almighty requires that one be able to perform the logically absurd, then one who is almighty could create a rock so big that even he couldn't lift it, then he would do the logically absurd, and lift it.

That would be true if time were a fourth dimension; as far as I know, that is hypothetical, and not coherent with what we have observed and tested; in other words, incoherent with scientific knowledge. Even Einstein didn't think time was a fourth dimension.