The Fallacy of Hell

The Lake of Fire is not what we've been taught.

Does the concept of eternal punishment in hell cause some people to become atheists?

Yes, the concept of eternal punishment in hell is frequently cited as a factor that leads some people to reject theism and embrace atheism. It raises profound moral and logical objections for many, making belief in a loving God difficult.

Famous People You Will Recoginze

Here are some well-known historical figures who explicitly or implicitly rejected Christianity (or left it) primarily because of objections to the doctrine of eternal hell, or at least cited the doctrine of hell as a major reason for their rejection of traditional Christianity.

Thomas Paine (1737–1809) – American Founding Father

  • In The Age of Reason, Paine sharply criticized the doctrine of eternal punishment as immoral and incompatible with a just God.
  • He rejected organized Christianity largely on these grounds, calling hell “a wicked invention.”

Charles Darwin (1809–1882) – Naturalist (qualified case)

  • Darwin did not become an “atheist,” but he drifted away from orthodox Christianity.
  • He wrote that he “could not see how anyone could wish Christianity to be true,” because Jesus’ doctrine that non-believers go to hell seemed to him “a damnable doctrine.”
  • Hell was one of the specific theological reasons for his gradual loss of faith.

Mark Twain (1835–1910) – Author

  • Twain ridiculed the doctrine of eternal punishment and said he could not accept a religion that taught endless torture.
  • His writings (Letters from the Earth, etc.) repeatedly cite hell as a central moral objection to Christianity.

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) – Philosopher

  • In Why I Am Not a Christian, Russell criticized Jesus for preaching eternal punishment, calling hell a morally unacceptable teaching.
  • He listed hell as a principal reason he rejected Christian faith.

Moral Repugnance

The idea of infinite torment for finite sins strikes many as unjust and disproportionate, portraying God as cruel rather than benevolent. Critics argue this doctrine conflicts with notions of mercy and fairness, prompting disbelief as a rejection of such a deity.1

Logical Inconsistency

Eternal hell seems incompatible with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God who could redeem or annihilate rather than torture forever. This “problem of hell” parallels the problem of evil, fueling atheism by suggesting the doctrine is a human invention for control, not divine truth.2

Historical and Psychological Impact

Some sources note that hell’s emphasis on fear has backfired, driving people away from religion entirely rather than converting them. Personal testimonies often describe it as the tipping point, especially when combined with lack of evidence from prior discussions.3

Criticisms of Edwards infinite punishment doctrine

Jonathan Edwards’s doctrine of infinite punishment for sin against an infinite God faces several philosophical, moral, and theological criticisms, though it remains influential in Reformed circles.

Moral disproportion

Critics argue that finite human sins, even if against an infinite God, cannot justly warrant infinite, unending torment, as this violates proportionality in justice (e.g., “eye for an eye”).4 Annihilationists like Clark Pinnock call it a “moral enormity” and vindictive, incompatible with a loving God. 5

Philosophical incoherence

The “infinite demerit” relies on equivocal uses of “infinite,” leading to contradictions: hell might be too lenient (not infinitely severe at every moment) or too harsh for finite acts. Jonathan Kvanvig critiques Edwards’s “status principle” (punishment scaled to the victim’s dignity) for ignoring mitigating factors like human finitude.6

Theological issues

Edwards’s occasionalism (God as sole cause) implies God authors sin, undercutting creaturely moral responsibility and making hell’s punishment incoherent. It also fails as an “issuant” account where heaven and hell both flow from God’s love; hell stems purely from justice, segregating divine motivations.7

Alternative views

Even Edwards inadvertently aids annihilationism by allowing “eternal punishment” to mean permanent destruction rather than ongoing torment, as long as the effect is everlasting. Critics favor this or universalism as more biblically and ethically consistent.8

  1. Hell: Eternal Sovereign Justice Exacted upon Evildoers, Eternal Perspective Ministries, https://www.epm.org/resources/2011/Mar/15/hell-eternal-sovereign-justice/, published March 14, 2011.epm ↩︎
  2. Eternal Punishment in Hell? Perspective Digest, https://www.perspectivedigest.org/archive/21-1/eternal-punishment-in-hell, published August 1, 2014. ↩︎
  3. Problem of Hell, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell, published October 3, 2003. ↩︎
  4. For annihilationist use of the proportionality / “eye for an eye” critique, see Alan W. Gomes, “Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell, Part One,” Christian Research Journal 14 (Spring 1991): 14–23, esp. his summary of annihilationist objections. ↩︎
  5. Clark H. Pinnock, “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent,” in Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 146: “I consider the concept of hell as endless torment in body and mind an outrageous doctrine, a theological and moral enormity, a bad doctrine of the tradition which needs to be changed.” ↩︎
  6. Jonathan L. Kvanvig, The Problem of Hell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), esp. chs. 1–3, where he questions the coherence of traditional accounts of eternal conscious torment for finite sins and explores proportionality problems. (For overview and citation of his definition of the “strong” traditional view, see Christopher Woznicki, “Redeeming Edwards’s Doctrine of Hell: An ‘Edwardsean’ Account,” Themelios 42.2 (2017): 321–34.) ↩︎
  7. Layne Hancock, “Jonathan Edwards Studies Is at a Dead End,” The Ledger (The London Lyceum, 2025), arguing that Edwards’s strong doctrine of continuous divine causation (often labeled occasionalism in the secondary literature) raises questions about God’s relation to sin and the coherence of retributive punishment. ↩︎
  8. For universalism as an alternate presented as more biblically and ethically coherent than Edwards-style ECT, see Thomas Talbott, “The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment,” in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, ed. Robin A. Parry and Christopher H. Partridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 135–54; and Stephen R. Holmes, “Everlasting Punishment and the Goodness of God,” Philosophia Christi 8.2 (2006): 327–43. ↩︎

Brother Roger and Perplexity AI

Recent Posts:

“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world…” — John 3:17

Brother Roger (with AI assist)

, ,
, , ,

10 responses to “Does the concept of eternal punishment in hell cause some people to become atheists?”

  1. clubschadenfreude Avatar
    clubschadenfreude

    it’s always curious how christians can’t agree on what their bible “really means”. for all of the claims of havng the one and only “truth”, there is no evidence that christianity is any different than any other set of myths.

    Reply
    1. Brother Roger Avatar
      Brother Roger

      Thank you for taking the time and effort to respond to my blog, Does the concept of eternal punishment … . That’s a good question which should be asked more of we Christ followers. Could it be that our Creator has purposely designed His Scriptures with some vagueness as to what it “really means”? Why? If everyone was in agreement on every passage that would leave no room for inquisitive minds and opportunity to use and develop our brains. It would deprive us of the opportunity to practice and learn patience with each other, as well as all of the other 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 characteristics of genuine love for our fellow man, love which is desperately needed in our age. There are Christians, and then there are Christians. Christ followers all agree that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus, John 14:6. He is our Ransom to set mankind free from our self-imposed prison. (See my blog on The Ransom of Mankind.) And some of us even agree that He will ultimately redeem all of mankind and restore us all to our rightful place as my blog proposes, and at that point the myth will become fact. Thanks again for your good thought provoking comment, and be blessed with a wonderful day and life.
      Brother Roger

      Reply
      1. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        Quite an inventive excuse on why your bible is incoherent. You have quite a problem in this explanation if your god is to be considered benevolent, since Christians have murdered each other and non-christians over this confusion.

        There is no love in your bible, just a need for control and obedience. And 1 Corinthians 13 is always curious since this god of yours does not display these characteristics.

        As for “christ followers all agree..” that is quite the false claim, since you do not agree on the most basic things in your religion. Is it free will or predestination? How do interpret the bible e.g. what parts are literal, metaphor, etc? What morals does this god wants? What does it consider to be a sin? What does baptism do and how to do it? Who is saved? How are they saved? And on and on.

        Self imposed prison? That’s not what the bible says. It has a god that failed in eden, and damned everyone for its failure in either allowing satan in or being unable to keep it out. Then this god repeatedly fails to fix its failure over the centuries, finally deciding that it needs a human blood sacrifice by torture to make a loophole in rules it made in the first place.

        I know that Christians don’t agree on what they want to claim about their god. Some invent a god that has universal salvation, some don’t. And not one of you can show that your version is any better than the rest.

      2. Brother Roger Avatar
        Brother Roger

        Thanks for your reply. As you read the rest of my blog you will see that I am convinced that Jesus will ultimately save and refine all of mankind which will include you. After Jesus gives you a big hug, and you hug Him, I want to be next in line to give you a big hug, and look forward to us becoming the best of friends for all of eternity.

      3. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        Yep, you are convinced, like all cultists are. Unsurpsingly, you have just made up a different version of christianity, like all of the rest of the christians.

        and I wouldn’t hug a genocidal lunatic, who supports slavery, and killing people for things they didn’t do. I also wouldn’t hug someone who worshipped such a thing.

      4. Brother Roger Avatar
        Brother Roger

        You have made some valid points, however, without knowing me, are you painting me with a brush that doesn’t apply to who I am or what I actually believe?
        Your complaints against certain atrocities such as slavery should be directed toward the people (humans) who instituted and perpetuated them. God didn’t do that. Some of His children did. When you do your research on abolition of slavery in the British Empire you will find that it was the true Christ followers such as William Wilberforce and The Clapham Group who led the fight and at great loss to themselves. America? Please read Abraham Lincoln, The Christian, https://www.amazon.com/Abraham-Lincoln-Christian-William-Johnson/dp/0915134136. I haven’t made up a new version of Christianity, I’ve recovered the ancient one which rightly showed how the Creator God isn’t like the gods mankind invented (who need to kill and require human blood sacrifice). If you read the other blogs, you’ll see how Penal Substitutionary Atonement is one of the newest theories, and sadly is now one of the most popular – most unfortunate! That’s why this blog exists: to help Christians see that vengefulness is not how God is, it’s how man has made God in their own image.

      5. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        You believe what you want to believe, and that means you have invented your own Christianity.

        If we are to believe your bible, your god agrees with what humans have supposedly done. It gives its blessing by making slavery acceptable to it:

        “44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.” Levicitus 25

        This is part and parcel of all of the other supposedly divine laws.

        Then your god says that slaves should never seek their freedom:

        “18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. 19 For it is to your credit if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, where is the credit in that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.” 1 Peter 2

        The abolitionists had to ignore their god to be against slavery and help free slaves.

        So you have either lied to me out of ignorance or intent. Every Christian claims that their version is the “right” one, the most ancient, the most biblical, etc etc and not one of you can show that your version is any better than the others.

        yes, there are many “new” theories, and curious how your god must mumble a lot for you Christians to constantly have to readjust your “interpretation”. Your god literally required a human blood sacrifice by torture. It could have said “believe and we’re good” but nope, the only one who wanted jesus to die on the cross was him/god.

      6. Brother Roger Avatar
        Brother Roger

        This March 30 comment from my Club Schadenfruede friend is so important I have responded with a separate blog and song about slave-owning Christians of prior years. Thanks for your continued interest. It would be best if you would do a quick bit of internet research on William Wilberforce before you read the blog. https://thefallacyofhell.com/2026/04/10/slave-owning-christians-will-they-be-in-heaven/

      7. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        yep more whitewashing from a Christian. It’s notable how Wilberforce had to ignore his religion to be an abolitionist. His bible states:

        “18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. 19 For it is to your credit if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, where is the credit in that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.”

        and

        “39 If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves. 40 They shall remain with you as hired or bound labourers. They shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41 Then they and their children with them shall be free from your authority; they shall go back to their own family and return to their ancestral property. 42 For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold. 43 You shall not rule over them with harshness, but shall fear your God. 44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.”

        so freeing slaves isn’t Christian.

        he also was quite a hypocrite when it came to the working conditions in England itself, standing against labor unions and attempting to silence those who were working for better conditions. He was also anti-woman’s rights and anti-catholic. He changed his mind later about the catholics.

        He did support animal welfare which I find laudable. He also was a typical christian thinking only his christianity was the “real” Christianity.

        there are other Christian claims aboaut how their god supports slavery:

        “We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit” – “The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V) January 8, 1455”

        ““We weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit – by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors”.” Papal Bull Dum Diversas 18 June, 1452

        it took until 2023 for the Vatican to repudiate this nonsenes and unsurpsingly, their god wasn’t available for comment: “”The Catholic Church therefore repudiates those concepts that fail to recognize the inherent human rights of indigenous peoples, including what has become known as the legal and political ‘doctrine of discovery.’ “”

  2. Slave-Owning Christians – “Will They Be In Heaven?” – The Fallacy of Hell

    […] But first, this blog is prresented in reply to the March 30, 2026 comment in my blog entitled Does the concept of eternal punishment in hell cause some people to become atheists?https://thefallacyofhell.com/2026/03/08/does-the-concept-of-eternal-punishment-in-hell-cause-some-pe… […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Fallacy of Hell

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading