Do I believe Atheists are going to hell?

[SteveII]

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.

A greater amount of good to bad in a finite amount of time doesn't mean anything in the face of eternal pain.  Remember: according to your own doctrine, it's not enough that people have led good lives, but that they accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.  According to simple math, the vast majority of people through the history of humanity have not believed in him in that capacity.  So, billions upon billions more people have been (and will go) to hell than those that haven't/won't.

Your point is just an appeal to emotion. The math is even more simple than that: everyone had an opportunity to respond to whatever truths God gave them. So logically everyone could have gone to heaven. The fact the everyone does not, in no logical way negates the infinite good of those that chose wisely AND the potential infinite good that could have been the persons that chose poorly. 

For number two and three, I'd argue that people don't have enough information to make an informed decision in the matter.  There's no conclusive proof that any of this is real.  Basing salvation/punishment on faith is utterly illogical, and evidence of bad design.  For something this important, I'd expect the creator of the universe to do more than rely on Middle Eastern myths as the only source of information.  Especially since everyone's starting point is different (someone born in Iran is incredibly likely to have a different opinion regarding Jesus than someone born in Kentucky).

Then it should be simple enough to show me the flaw in the logic. Go ahead. Use a syllogism so we can all follow along. 

Regarding starting points, that has been discussed at length here--if God judges someone based on the information that has been revealed to them, your point is irrelevant. 

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.

"Other than it being mostly like a prison, it's not at all like a prison."

Really? 

Also, you keep saying "logical consequence" as though it's somehow different than "sentence."  It's not.  "If you don't choose Christ, you go to hell" isn't substantially different than "If you commit a crime, you go to prison."  And there's no greater crime against god than disbelief. 

"If you commit a crime, you go to prison" is a bad analogy to what is happening with salvation for one simple reason: it is your natural condition that will result in you going to hell--not one or more things you decided to do. So, a better analogy is if you failed to acquire a free waiver from prison, you will end up in prison. That analogy illustrates what I was saying above about your moral objection (that it would have been better for no one to exist than for some to end up suffering in hell) falling short on logical grounds.

So, for the third time, is the torturous pain experienced in hell the ethical treatment of a prisoner?  This is a really simple question, one that shouldn't take this amount of dodging.

It is neither ethical nor unethical. It just is the consequence of reality.