When I was a kid every Christian I ever met, every preach I ever heard preach, would never question the idea that non-Christians go to Hell. Over time Atheists and Christians have been debating, arguing, and it still seems like it will never end. I remember that about six years ago I started learning about the different philosophical and moral arguments against Christianity. Many of them target the eternal torment doctrine so to speak. Suddenly all these Christians start promoting the annihilation doctrine that is popular among Jehovah's Witnesses. This starts happening conveniently after such arguments as, "A finite existence of sin does not warrant an eternal punishment" begin to widely circulate. I get the feeling that Christians are clinging to what they used to consider heresy just so they have something to counter some of the brightest arguments against Christianity that have ever been. They have changed their beliefs so that they can debate better. It cracks me up. You cannot tell me that most of you believed in a false doctrine for 900 years and now suddenly you realize that the eternal torment doctrine is false! LOL.
That should read 1900 years.
You know the fact that I put down that Christianity has been around for roughly 1900 years MIGHT just probably indicate that I know that Christian history started long before I was born. I am not denying that there were people who promoted annihilation rather than torment, I am saying that more Christians now believe annihilation than before, conveniently after Atheists began attacking the eternal torment doctrine. If annihilation is true, then sinners have nothing to worry about, you simply cease to exist. That is what Atheists ALREADY believe! Where is the punishment? Where is the incentive to change? There are NONE. If we are so terrible how is destroying us going to be a punishment? It sounds like a load of bullocks to me. The annihilation theory is convenient when debating with Atheists because it gives you something in coming, or close to something in common, and it walls off an avenue of criticism against the morality of a tyrant god.
Oh yes it does! Mark 9:43-48

"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.' And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.' And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire--where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'"
It says hell, not lake of fire, but yes I know what the lake of fire is. That is a direct quote from the bible where Jesus says that hell has a fire that shall never be quenched. Why? Because in the English language hell is used synonymous with the lake of fire. That is just the way it is. If Jesus had used the word sheol in place of hell then you would have a stance to argue.