Is it right to condemn somebody to hell for not believing that Jesus was our savoir even if that someone was raised in an atheist home also don't you think it is rather extreme to burn/torture somebody for all of eternity and I don't think I would be happy with even the worst person ever e.g. Hitler/ Saddam being tortured like that. ...
Thank you for the honest question. A couple of thoughts, take them as you will and feel free to come back at me on them.
At one level, there's a kind of mistaken presumption here. It's not really accurate to say people go to hell for not believing in Jesus. It's a bit like saying a robber goes to jail for not pleading guilty at the beginning of a trial. A failure to do the act that would save you from a sentence cannot truly be blamed for the sentence. The reality is that the criminal committed the act that led to a plea being necessary in the first place
Similarly, no one is at the first instance condemned for not believing in Jesus. In fact, as I believe has been pointed by someone else in this thread already, we already stand condemned, regardless of whether Jesus is in the equation or not.
I guess the second thing is perspective. For instance, we understand that that murder is worse than stealing, and incurs a worse punishment, correct? So there is such a thing as greater and lesser crimes, incurring greater and lesser penalties. What if we then consider a perfect, holy God, who made a beautiful creation, and made people to relate to him and honour him as God. What if his creatures, which he charged to guard his creation, destroyed it? What if his creatures, who he charged to love each other, killed each other? What if his creatures, who he charged to honour and love him, ignored him and made themselves out to be 'gods', masters of their own fate? What would be a reasonable appraisal of that crime (especially given we are the defendants in this circumstance?) What would be the sentence? How do you measure the conflict of perfect and imperfect? A question worth pondering. Even if, for the sake of argument, you thought hell (whatever you think hell means) for eternity was too much punishment, what would you say would be a reasonable reparation, given the circumstances?
Anyway, to the guts of your question, a couple of thoughts. The Bible talks about things like sins of ignorance, it talks about those with knowledge being judged more harshly than those without, and it talks about Gentiles (non-Jews) being able to do the things required of the Law (i.e. the Old Testament Law of ISrael) without actually knowing the Law. It also talks about God being just, treating people as they deserve, without favouritism.
While I can't make a conclusive call, I can confidently say the following.
1) God will not judge anyone on the basis of something they didn't and couldn't know
2) God knows the hearts of man, and he knows EXACTLY what he have thought and done, without omission or addition.
3) God is just and merciful, and exercises his mercy as he will. I have heard amazing stories of people who found out about and followed Jesus in the most impossible circumstances. If you want an example, read about Paul in the New Testament.
4) If we claim rationality and freedom of will as important aspects of humanity, we must ultimately acknowledge that being raised in an atheist home, for instance, cannot be an excuse for not hearing and making some sort of independent judgement on the truth claims of Christianity. My own mother became a Christian in a non Christian household. To not investigate, at the very least, is intensely irrational.
5) As time goes on, there are fewer and fewer people around the world who can claim not to have ever heard of Jesus. Africa is quickly becoming the continent with the largest population of active Christians. China has for years had a growing church even in the face of, until recently, complete and utter opposition by the Chinese government. We in the West have even less of an excuse, with a church on every corner and near ubiquitous access to a free and unhindered internet.
