Do I believe Atheists are going to hell?

[SteveII]

Except I have shown the logic behind it. Obviously there are eternal consequences when and eternal soul rejects an eternal God. Bringing up a "finite mortal existence" is a straw man. Your objection is an appeal to emotion and/or incredulity. 

It matters because you're attempting to state that a finite mortal existence is somehow better than nonexistence for those who will suffer an eternity of torture once their mortal existence is over.  It's ridiculous in a logical sense, given that since something that doesn't exist cannot feel pain, and an eternity of non-awareness is better than an eternity - mortal lifetime of pain.

First, why would we look at it on a person-by-person basis? There are billions upon billions of people who have had, on average, good lives and will would participate in heaven--so there is certainly an argument to be made the there is an aggregate greater good than bad to our existence. 

Second, for your objection to be carry any weight, you would have to ignore the fact that the people bound for hell didn't have any say in it.  

Third, I could argue that even the chance of eternal bliss outweighs the chance of eternal hell (especially factoring you that the result has to do with your choices) in the question of whether it is better to have existed or not. 

I also said this earlier: So, what is hell? It is my view that the immaterial soul is the thing going to hell--which would be an immaterial place/existence/experience. I believe that while it is a place of torment, one is not eternally tortured by some overlord doing things to you. We are talking about souls and NOT bodies. Flames and teeth are material and would have no effect on the immaterial so all the lake of fire/weeping and gnashing of teeth references seem to be metaphors. The pain is spiritual and stems from the complete separation from God--a condition that obviously has a profound effect on the immaterial soul. 

Pain is pain.  Emotional pain can be just as crippling as physical pain.  Moreover, I don't see how the distinction even matters.  We're talking about a state (physical, mental, spiritual - doesn't matter) in which the individual is being tortured (or, perhaps more accurately, in such pain that it may as well be torture, even if it's not administered by an external force).  Is that the ethical treatment of a prisoner?

It is easy to think the doctrine of Hell is like one of the many caricatures one sees of hell over a lifetime. Again, it is not like this cannot be avoided by one's own actions. It is a logical consequence, not a selected punishment from a list of possibilities. Other than no escape, it has nothing in common with a prison and "prisoner" is not the right word.