Let’s take a look at an atheist tweet:
— Annie Hills (@Atheist_Annie) August 31, 2016
Apparently the tweet is aiming to provide an objection to the logic of evangelism. I am going to reconstruct the underlying argument in the form of a syllogism:
(1) If persons who have not heard of hell do not go to hell then the missionary ought not tell them about hell.
(2) Persons who have not heard of hell do not go to hell.
(3) Therefore, the missionary ought not tell them about hell.
There are two problems with this argument and they lie with premises (1) and (2). In short, the Christian has good reasons to reject both of them.
What’s wrong with premise (1)? Simple: our moral obligations are constituted by God’s commands. God has commanded us to evangelize. Therefore, we are obliged to evangelize, period. See, for example, Matthew 28:19-20. (To be sure, one could say much more here about the relative goods of introducing people to a relationship with God, but the nature of moral obligation is sufficient to undermine (1).)
What about premise (2)? Reading it charitably, the principle is drawing upon Paul’s teaching in Romans 2:12-15 that God judges individuals based on the degree of moral knowledge they have. But of course, it doesn’t follow from that that no person can be damned without having knowledge of hell. Alas, premise (2) is based on a strawman which does not represent the views of mainstream Christian orthodoxy. (To say “mainstream Christian orthodoxy” is to concede that it is possible some Christian somewhere holds such a view. But that’s irrelevant to the mainstream of Christian opinion.)
Oh, and one more thing: the word “Eskimo” is widely rejected today by indigenous people of the North. (See, for example, here.)
For further discussion of this topic see my article “Are the missionaries bringing bad news? A misbegotten objection to inclusivism“.