comment: >
  
  Easy, your wrong because its not an isomorphic relation. The existence of heaven (theosis with God) is individual based and the state of others (in hell) will have zero impact on this fact.
  “knowing that their brother, wife, friend, parent who didn't believe in God is burning in Hell for the rest of eternity?” Yes, I do it today. I’m, for the most part, generally happy with life now and the negative state of others in this world has very inconsequential impact on me. 
  Right now wars are happenings, people are dying and receiving violence, but too the vast majority of humans…it’s just Thursday
context: people who do not believe in and accept God will go to hell when they die, regardless of how good of a person they are.
  
  Hell is a horrible place where people suffer eternally.
  
  This idea if he'll doesn't match up with what some of the major Christian sects believe in. Many don't rule out people returning to God after death and hell as not being some eternal torture:
  
  Hell is not eternal torment, but is the final and irrevocable choosing of that which is opposed to God so completely ... that the only end is total non-being."
  
  That's from the church of England. >
  
  My own mom and dad have told me countless times that it makes them so sad that I've rejected God and won't be in heaven. That's after they raised me as a christian my entire life and now tell me I never was simply because I no longer believe. 
  I told a guy to eat shit and burn in hell the other day because he told me the same. That all of my efforts to be a good human being mean jack shit to them if it isn't in the name of their god. I don't tolerate it anymore. Fuck all of them. >
  
  All your great deeds that lead to you being proud of telling people "eat shit and burn in hell." Maybe there's some canceling out going on. >
  
  There are several Christian schools of thought that do not subscribe to the general view you have stated.
  Some Christians believe in the idea of universal salvation, which basically states that everyone eventually gets to Heaven regardless of the state in which they died. In that light, those in both Heaven and Hell do not have to contest with the idea that their suffering is eternal.
  Origen (early Christian scholar) suggests that Hell is not a place of suffering but purification to which only the sinful aspects of a person go, not the entirety of the human soul. The image of fire is metaphorical and not meant to be interpreted literally.
  Annihilationists believe that the souls of bad people are simply allowed to die naturally, which isn't "eternal life" great but is distinctly not "burning in hell" bad.
  More generally, Pope John Paul II asserted that the suffering in Hell was about "the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God" rather than Hell as a separate space - not great, but not "burning" bad either. >
  
  Is Hell on earth? There are people suffering with lifelong mental disorders who’ve never experienced a break which makes me wonder if it is really a state of mind after all. Because on the same plane you have people that are happier than ever >
  
  Can you not be happy unless everyone you know is happy? >
  
  
  How can anybody be happy in heaven knowing that their loved ones who don't believe in God are suffering forever in hell?
  
  In fact for people with traumatic experiences how can they be happy in Heaven without fixing those problems? But fixing those problems either by altering your memory or changing your ability to cope with them would in essence be changing what makes you you, so it could be argued that whatever makes it into Heaven is just loosely based on the messed up humans on Earth.
  There is of course a simple answer to your question that fits within the scope of Christian theology. A good Christian is assumed to trust God's judgment and understand that whoever is in Hell deserves it, and rejoice that this deserved fate has been delivered. This is backed up by the entire concept that God himself thinks it just and appropriate to torture some people for eternity for whatever they did in their finite time on Earth.
  The central issue here is that your concept of what a "good Christian" should be doesn't mesh with the underlying theology of the religion. It isn't that heaven/hell don't exist (of course they actually don't, but that isn't the point here) or that your understanding of what they are is skewed (it probably is, but again that isn't the point). Instead the issue is that you a reasoning from the standpoint of a good person not being OK with being in Heaven, and that underlying premise is false because the idea of a "Good Christian" is really not a good person in our modern system of ethics.
  Now if that doesn't satisfy you there is a more biblical answer which comes straight from scripture. I will reference the Book of Job to produce this summary of the morals: "God is super powerful and doesn't have to explain shit." >
  
  How can anyone be happy in heaven if their loved on is in hell?
  What if heaven gave each person in heaven their perfect ideal paradise without their knowledge. Perhaps your loved one went to Hell and you went to heaven, but within your own heaven, you are reunited with what you believe is your loved one. 
  This would also solve the issue of how there can be a perfect paradise for everyone, knowing that each individual can have different values that can conflict with others. >
  
  Or it's one place. If I got sent to someone else's paradise and had to live in the paradise of some fundamentalist Christian I can think of no worse hell >
  
  Yea, which is why I think if it were to exist and truly be paradise for everyone, it would be to be siloed per individual. Otherwise, like you said, many people would be in hell anyway. >
  
  Based on the stereotypical view of hell, and the one I think you're thinking of, I cant try to change your view.
  It's worth noting however, that concept of hell is not biblical. In fact, hell is never mentioned in the bible. (There are a few metaphors that are often pointed at as discussing hell, but it's not actually clear on the subject.)
  Some interpretations for don't consider heaven and hell to be separate "places", even if they believe in hell at all. For example, some believe that hell is a state of "mind" (for lack of a better term). 
  Imagine you suddenly had a perfect understanding of cause and effect, and of morality. Those that tried their best in life, would understand that their shortfalls were out of their hands, while those who didn't, would be fully, painfully aware of the full extent of the harms they caused. "Hell" under this framework would be the guilt caused by that understanding. (This is just one of several versions of the idea. I've also heard it used for just accepting God, without the other morality bits.)
  Furthermore, you can interpret "accepting God" and the like, as more the concept of wmbeacing goodness and grace, rather than accurate belief in the specifics of the litteral entity.
  I've spoken to several (prptestant) priests about the issue, and every one has said some form of "I believe in a loving, merciful God. As such, I believe we can trust that good people, such as our loved ones, would necessarily be cared for, even if they don't fully know His love in life." >
  
  It seems pretty biblical to me.  E.g., Matthew 25:31--46 Jesus talks about sending those who help others to heaven, and those who don't to "eternal punishment" "into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels".  I mean... I guess this could be metaphorical eternal fire and metaphorical punishment... but... I don't really see any reason not to accept it as literal. >
  
  That discusses punishment and torment, but it really doesn't describe a "place". It certainly doesn't give the detailed specifics about hell the average person thinks is codified into Christian cannon.
  I'm not claiming it's an unreasonable interpretation, but most people seem to think the details are unambiguously laid out. >
  
  Constantine tells us that one of the pleasures of Heaven is witnessing the tortures of those in Hell. So presumably the only people admitted are the sort thst would enjoy that kind of thing. >
  
  Most humans probably would. Just look at basic social gatherings, say movies were people cheer when a character they dislike gets killed in that made up fantasy. It’s probably deep satisfaction to watch the destruction of that which one finds repulsive, even if that destruction is leads to inhumanity. However, social norms try to limit expressions of this basic fact >
  
  That's a rather unsophisticated (seriously not meant as a dig) understanding of Heaven and Hell; e.g. the language used to teach Sunday School children who aren't yet old enough to grasp the subtleties and complexities of what 'living a holy life' means practically speaking.
  There's no way I can fully explain it here, so I encourage you to do some research if you're interested, but at the very least, I can say that the Catholic Church (largest Christian denomination in the world) does not teach what you wrote as you wrote it.
  The reality is that people who through no fault of their own are unable to assent to the reality of God are still able to be saved. Everyone, no matter how much they are capable of acknowledging the divine in their life, knows right and wrong and has thousands of opportunities to choose the one over the other throughout their time on earth. We all know intrinsically when we've done something that hurts ourselves or others. We also know when we've done a kindness for someone. Those who choose the path of righteousness and mercy (asking for forgiveness when they've hurt others as well as forgiving others when asked by those who've hurt us) are not far from the Kingdom of God.
  Put another way, each of us picks where we want to end up after our death by the life we lead. If our friend or family member picks a different place than we do, do they not have that right? And, further, if we sense that they are on a path of voluntary self-destruction in this life or the next, do we not owe it to them to provide counsel, compassion, and love so as to reorient them onto a path of righteousness? >
  
  An omnipotent god can make everyone in Heaven happy simply by fiat, by definition. 
  Normal human reason has nothing to do with it. 
  Of course there are many reasons to suspect the concept is silly and untrue... this particular supposed contradiction just isn't one of them. 
  One thing to consider is the most common Christian explanation for the Problem of Evil: you can't have free will without Evil existing.
  But... that means since Heaven contains no Evil, no one in Heaven has free will. And since they don't... being happy isn't a choice, it just is. >
  
  Which is disturbing as fuck. I don't want to exist anywhere where someone can control my mood to fundamentally change who I am. Any version of me who's not horrified by the eternal torture of others isn't who I am. >
  
  I asked myself this question when I was 10. How could mom n dad be happy in heaven if I’m in hell? I just never got on board. Couldn’t do it. >
  
  Well the idea is that being with god is like a perfect drug and you wont care about anything else and be overjoyed for serving him. And that hell is just eternal withdrawal from that drug.
  Or at least that was the idea before the whole fire and brimstone stuff. >
  
  The answer is straighforward - because they are.  Because they are in heaven.  It's definitional.  You could ask questions about the existence of god, the logic of many things within relgions but at the end of the day the states are truths themselves, and heaven is paradise.  Because...it is.  
  It's like saying "if god exists then he clearly isn't good".  Well...the definition of god is that god is good, so it's a pointless argument. >
  
  This is just redefining words so as to make it so they no longer convey meaning >
  
  I'm not sure what "this" is that you're referring to. >
  
  Your argument, as I understand it, is:
  
  We use the word "good" to mean two things: the traditional definition, something like causing results beneficent to humanity, and also whatever God does.
  Therefore, God is "good", by definition.
  
  This doesn't tell us anything about what God is like. It doesn't tell us if God has anything in common with the other things we would call "good". 
  Similarly,
  
  We use the word "paradise" to refer to a place of pure pleasure with no flaws or downsides, and also whatever Heaven is.
  Therefore, Heaven is "paradise", by definition.
  
  This doesn't tell us anything about what to expect in Heaven. We know it will be "paradise", but it will be "paradise" no matter what it's like, because we've defined "paradise" as "whatever Heaven is". It could be a traditional "paradise" where it's super nice, or it could be incredibly unpleasant, and in both cases it would be "paradise" >
  
  How does it make sense to say "i believe the idea of heaven that you're telling me about god, but that it's paradise I just can't buy".
  I think - to your point of words having meaning - that paradise would be exclusive of the deep sadness and sorrow you'd feel of your family suffering.  It might be irreconcileable, but that's the job of the christian - to figure it out but without saying god was wrong or lied. 
  When god tells you something don't you - if you're believer - accept is truth and figure out how to make sense of it, not pick and choose?  In this case accept the existence of heaven but reject the nature of it?  That seems strange to me. >
  
  I mean, yes, Christians are masters of doublethink and ignoring cognitive dissonance. That doesn't mean it's a valid way of reasoning.
  
  How does it make sense to say "i believe the idea of heaven that you're telling me about god, but that it's paradise I just can't buy".
  
  I could see a possible world where an afterlife exists that isn't paradise. That's how most religion's afterlives are, after all. >
  
  Do you think OP is talking about hell and heaven in generic "afterlife" concepts?  I take OP to be straighforwardly talking about christian heaven and hell. >
  
  I also believe that is what they mean. I was answering the specific question of how one could reconcile the idea that "[a] god exists, and [an afterlife called] Heaven exists" with the idea "but [that place called] Heaven isn't paradise" >
  
  Assuming they exist, heaven and hell are sort of metaphors for an experience that there's really no way to describe in any way that makes sense to beings in physical, mortal bodies. Our current experience is our only frame of reference, so descriptions of heaven and hell would be just a way to get the concept.
  It would be entirely possible that you don't have the same earthly connections. Which to us (some) seems horrible. But it might not be.
  Like let's say bees go to heaven, and you tell a bee, "It's eternal bliss!" and the bee says, "Yeah, but can I make honey all day?" "No. You won't make honey." "That sounds like hell." There's no way to describe the experience, so to the bee you'd say, "It's like a place where you make honey all day all the time and there's no bears or people stealing it." That's the best description for bliss to a bee. >
  
  You are applying worldly concepts of emotion and society onto supernatural ones. It is very possible that we cannot yet grasp the ways in which we will even feel ‘happiness’ in heaven. The fatal flaw in your argument is that you are saying the conditions of heaven serve to maximize happiness as we humans currently see it. However, emotions such as happiness may not even exist in a place like heaven, and we cannot yet fathom how we will feel once we get there. >
  
  
  You are applying worldly concepts of emotion and society onto supernatural ones. It is very possible that we cannot yet grasp the ways in which we will even feel ‘happiness’ in heaven. The fatal flaw in your argument is that you are saying the conditions of heaven serve to maximize happiness as we humans currently see it. However, emotions such as happiness may not even exist in a place like heaven, and we cannot yet fathom how we will feel once we get there.
  
  And the fatal flaw in your argument is that one must set aside all of our rational observations about how the universe works for a belief that has no basis in reality and is ultimately just a fairy tale. >
  
  That’s a completely separate argument that has absolutely no bearing on OPs specific thesis. >
  
  Well, I think it's incredibly relevant and has plenty of bearing on OP's thesis. 
  The convenient thing about claiming that heaven has no rules is that you can just make up whatever explanation you want about what goes on there. 
  That's not an argument (at least not a good one).
  If I told the OP that heaven has an awesome casino and there's no reason to fret because you can simply buy your loved ones out of heaven with Jesus Chips (since in heaven the odds are against the house), it would be just as valid as the argument you just made. >
  
  Where in the bible does it say heaven has an awesome casino? All the bible does say is that heaven is paradise. My argument is that this concept of “loved ones” and “circumstance” are human notions, and may not be supernatural one. Who is to say you are even aware of your past loved ones in heaven? That’s a major assumption that has no basis in scripture. All we know is that, heaven by definition, is paradise. We are not aware of the means on which this is achieved. >
  
  
  How can anybody be happy in heaven knowing that their loved ones who don't believe in God are suffering forever in hell?
  
  Because God said so, that is why.  
  Its not great reasoning, but if Heaven exists and God is real, God makes the rules. And if he says you are happy, then You Are Happy. >
  
  Ah, so despite knowing that your loved ones are being tortured for all of eternity, you just don't care anymore? 
  I guess that's cool? I never considered that heaven would essentially be full of functional heroin addicts who are doped up in a way that makes them stop caring about the plight of their loved ones. >
  
  Thats kind of Gods thing. You wouldn't feel the same way about things that you do now. >
  
  Is this written in the Bible somewhere or are you just throwing shit out there that you personally believe? >
  
  Is there any answer that wouldn't make you mad?  
  If I say its in the bible - you would say "Well thats a psychopathic god" or some such.  
  If I say that its just my own beliefs - you would say "so you are just making it up" >
  
  Your questions and considerations are based on a logical foundation. 
  Belief in things religious or so related, are not subject to logic. It's about faith - which has nothing to do with logic. 
  Your inquiry or analysis of the existence of heaven or hell is therefore fundamentally flawed. 
  It's like fitting a square peg into a round hole: logic into matters of faith. Alternatively, it's like a 2 dimensional being trying to fathom the wonders of 3 dimensional space. It's not going to happen. 
  Worlds apart or dimensions apart: once you begin to question on a foundation of logic, you are in a different 'world' of logic and that 'world' cannot apply to the world of faith. >
  
  Wrong, his questions come from emotion and not logical inference. The God of Christianity is objective and aligned with truth, therefore one can indeed make logical inferences based on what is given. The only use of faith is faith in the revelations of God, but beyond that logic is able to deduce certain facts. >
  
  
  How can anybody be happy in heaven knowing that their loved ones who don't believe in God are suffering forever in hell?
  
  You're willing to accept the premise that God exists. You're presumably willing to accept the premise that he created everything. But you're not willing to accept the premise that his power is great enough to allow certain people to be happy regardless of certain factors? That's where you think the limit of his power would be? >
  
  Organized religions dont know the truth of heaven/hell/reality. It’s all creations of the human mind. The truth is we don’t know whether or not those are real. We may never know the truth, shit we don’t even know if dead people know the truth, and I think death is the closest thing to knowing the truth, besides psychedelics >
  
  It's simple: mourning the presence of former loved ones in Hell, is part of the heavenly package. >
  
  The Bible is a compilation of various texts written by different authors living under different historical contexts. From the Assyrian conquest, to the Babylonian Exile, to the Post-Exilic period, and up to the era of Roman rule.  
  The myths and beliefs also changed over time.  Originally other deities existed alongside Yahweh in a monolatrous system, and then there was a shift to the belief that there was only one deity.  There is a time when god could be worshipped outside the temple and when god could only be worshipped in the temple. 
  The interpretations of this compilation continued throughout a period where the church was in competition with the secular powers and various sects and heresies were battling each other. This means that the interpretations we have received are just those that won a contest. 
  Not to mention the fact that the texts were written in Aramaic, Greek, Coptic Greek, Latin, etc. and we can't be certain whether we have received the correct interpretation. 
  All of this ignores the fact that the bible itself says very little about hell.  It was later theologians, preachers, and religious movements that introduced the concepts of hell and the devil that are popular today. >
  
  I don't know what kind of Corrupted Christian people taught you. The Christian I know taught me that, being a Christian means that you follow the way of Jesus. Christian will try to be as kind, loving and forgiving as Jesus. Otherwise every sins that is mentioned in Bible will keep repeating itself until the end of the world and The prophecy of the end will come true. >
  
  The religious people in my life would respond with something like this. 
  "We are incapable of understanding God's plan but it will all make sense when we reach the kingdom of Heaven"
  I'll let you decide for yourself if that's a convincing argument or not. >
  
  Watch John Ramirez on YouTube you will get your answer >
  
  Might be that your humanity is removed >
  
  Yes - humanity's view point is skewed. There's many misconceptions coming from people who have never read the Bible and only interpret it from word of mouth. Over 90% of Americans claim to be Christians but only less than 5% have actually read the Bible. Most think that there's a verse that says "God only helps those who help themselves", even the singer of One Republic who's grandpa was a preacher, but there's no where in the bible it says anything close to it. People just read online or hear from non Christians and it becomes representative of the religion (based on false information).
  The Bible says that hell is complete darkness, but we burn. That in itself is contradictory, cause fire is light. So we need to stop assuming what the Bible says and interpret it for ourselves.
  True legitimate Bible reading "Christians" are people who love and believe God. And it's the best thing in their POV to spend time with God for eternity, that's heaven. Hell is a place where there's no God, it's the opposite actually, there's Satan. So choose if ya wanna spend eternity with God or Satan. >
  
  There going in the right direction >
  
  Which monotheistic religions state that non believers go to hell regardless of character? >
  
  It's almost as if it's completely illogical, like some kind of made up parable designed to keep people in line. >
  
  
  
  people who do not believe in and accept God will go to hell when they die, regardless of how good of a person they are. They also teach that people who believe in God and follow the "rules" of their religion will go to Heaven after they die. 
  Heaven is a perfect utopia where everyone is happy and exists with God eternally, and Hell is a horrible place where people suffer eternally.
  
  
  Telling people they will get "rewarded" with heaven if they do something or "pubished" with hell if they don't is a great way of manipulating people. So, I think that particular view on heaven / hell got so popular because it works very well if you want to manipulate someone.
  I don't think there is much biblical justification for that particular view on hell. It's the most popular because it's the most effective.
  Different branches if christianity have different views on heaven and hell. >
  
  Doesn't God love all his children? Doesn't he forgive all sins? Seems if those 2 things were true, no one would be in hell >
  
  Or how about a man made book used for the purpose of keeping the masses in line with fear. >
  
  In Dante’s version of Hell, there was also a third place - Purgatory. God wanted sinners to want to repent. Anyone who wanted to repent went to Purgatory and purged their sins through work. They eventually earn their place in Heaven. The only people who go to Hell are the people who committed to their sins and actively rejected God’s forgiveness. Therefore they do not deserve pity. >
  
  Isaiah 65:17 “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.”
  We start a new life in heaven. They won’t even be a thought. >
  
  
  How can anybody be happy in heaven knowing that their loved ones who don't believe in God are suffering forever in hell?
  
  I feel like this is related to Matthew 22:23-30 when the Sadducees asked Jesus what would happen if a woman who was married, widowed then remarried dies? In heaven which husband would be her husband? Jesus answers that no one is married in heaven. I assume this means that you will not remember your loved ones either. >
  
  I've always thought it was quite arrogant of us to believe we nailed down the whole God thing. 
  If God is real and goes by the description of religions, he would be beyond our comprehension. If God is beyond our comprehension, then so would his religion. Therefore, i cannot, in good faith, believe in an organized religion that we cannot fully comprehend. Therefore, i cannot believe in the organized religious interpretation of heaven and hell.
  Personally, I believe religious texts are parables designed to help us explain and understand the philosophy of life. >
  
  That view of Hell is actually shared by only a very narrow band of Christians. 
  For instance, Adventists believe that hell is total annihilation, sort of like the atheist afterlife.  The support this by observing that the words used to describe hellfire are the same ones used to describe the destruction of Soddom and Gammorah.  They can be interpreted as "eternal burning", but they can also be interpreted as "complete burning".  As there are no city sized locations that are perpetually and inexplicably on fire, they argue that eternal burning is a misrepresentation of what hell will actually be.  Additionally, the Bible is fairly clear that Satan himself will be slain, and it seems logically incongruous to assume that "God's children" will receive a fate worse than Satan's. 
  I'm less familiar with Catholic doctrine, but I am told that they believe eternal hellfire is a poetic interpretation of the inherent misery of being outside of God's presence and trying to continue to live in sin.  Purgatory is for people who never found God and serves more as a testing ground to demonstrate the flaws of a godless society.   Entry into heaven is open to anyone who wants it in the afterlife.
  Mormons believe in four distinct sections of the afterlife, the highest of which is the celestial kingdom which is basically everyone becoming gods, the second highest is the terrestrial kingdom, basically classic heaven imagery, third place is the telestial kingdom which is like life on earth but better in every way and is for unrepentant Sinners.  There is also outer darkness, which is reserved for people who know God intimately and hate him anyway.  
  My own faith posits that the afterlife is unknowable and all sources are suspect, but if my mortal brain can think of an issue with how it's constructed, God is also aware of that issue, smarter than me, and has had longer than I have ever lived to think of a satisfactory solution.   In any case, I'm in no position to really make demands.   Even if the afterlife is just a big meat grinder, there's nothing I can do about it, so my best bet is to play along until I get there. >
  
  Christians believe they’re better than everyone else, therefore they deserve to be in heaven and it’s no one else’s fault but them selfs if they end up in hell. Basically christians are selfish assholes. >
  
  My interpretation of hell is more of a time period that sinners and those who have not accepted Jesus's atonement suffer for their sins. As in there is a punishment for sin that we have to endure but that can be avoided through Christ's sacrifice. I imagine the suffering may feel like eternity but will eventually end and everyone will live in some sort of paradise God prepared. I also believe the suffering is more like a feeling of guilt for sins rather than actual physical punishment. 
  I believe living a good life treating other well and all that lessens the "punishment" regardless if you have faith in Jesus or not. To me this makes more sense if there is a loving God rather than sending most of humanity to never ending torture burning in hell. >
  
  Judaism believes that hell is just a cleansing process before heaven. And everyone eventually goes to heaven. >
  
  I mean if we're going to talk rationale, the experience of time is a function of our decomposing bodies. assuming there is an afterlife, it won't be one of a linear experience, it'll be simultaneous. >
  
  That's a pretty rash assumption. There's no way for you to prove that our time perception is only due to our decomposing bodies, let alone to know how time would be perceived in a hypothetical afterlife. >
  
  you've heard that time is relative right? >
  
  Yes, I'm aware of the physics involving spacetime. It doesn't help to prove your assertions at all.
  Care to elaborate? >
  
  So, I know it logically doesn’t make sense, but the whole foundation of the Christian faith is believing what we can’t understand. The only information we have about heaven and hell is that there are two sides, the side of the world and the side of God. Everybody makes mistakes, but dedicating your life to Christ shows that you actually care about the mistakes you make and that you want to get better. Apparently, normal people have different motives? I honestly don’t fully understand the concept, but I do know what I believe and I know where I’m going. I’ve just accepted it. If you don’t believe in God, you believe in the devil, and if you believe in the devil, you don’t believe in God. That’s just the way it is >
  
  Ive always believed that talking about whether religious concepts are 'logical' in a vacuum is really just empty semantics, but oh well here we go...
  Suppose 'Heaven is a perfect utopia where everyone is happy and exists with God eternally' --- so if youre in Heaven, your conditions of being happy will be met always. So if a condition for you to be happy is to think that your relatives are also in heaven, when youre in heaven, you will think that your relatives are also in heaven. Maybe God will lie to you that your relatives changed their heart before they died and is actually in heaven.
  ​
  On another hand, I think a more appropriate counter to yours is that 'heaven is not a paradise whether hell exists or not' --- your OP is too restricted --- what if a sect of christianity thinks that only heaven exists but not hell? Does that make their belief plausible then? I dont think so. >
  
  It's God's universe and He does what He pleases, in spite of our opinions.  I believe in the goodness of God and His mercy.  I believe somehow, some way, He gives us a chance to believe.  I have heard the stories of many who did not believe and met God in a near death experience.
  As for 'salvation', it is more than a decision to follow God's precepts.  When we truly believe on Jesus, we are changed.
  As a parent, I would not allow an evil person to live in my house and be around my family.  God loves us and does not want us to live in eternity with evil.  I truly believe that love has to have a place where there is no evil; heaven.  Hell is the absence of the presence of God. >
  
  No one here is dead, as far as I know, so they can't give input. If there is a life after death, how do we know what makes us happy in that life? Perhaps a perfect utopia means something different in the afterlife.