It is correct that Madhavacharya said that souls failing to surrender to Sri Hari were eternally tormented in the hells. How this is to be interpreted is still up for debate. [Note for DavidH: Madhavacharya is the founder of a particular branch of Vaishnavism, whose philosophy is sometimes referred to as dvaita - duality]. There are many branches of Vaishnavism, which is itself but one branch of the Vedic knowledge tree.
Coming back to point of this thread, I would add to the suggestion that you visit a temple with the suggestion that you start reading texts.
It is not necessary to go to the temple, nor to read scripture, to be a Hindu - but both are a great aid. What is necessary is practice of the spiritual methods. Some of us consider the mind, and the body, as temple, with the deities in residence receiving their due worship as naturally as breathing. Nonetheless, such persons will not speak ill of temple going.
However, it should be said that the 'energy' (Shakti) of temples is variable. In some places, I have been overwhelmed, in others felt almost nothing. A visit to a temple can tell you a great deal, but not necessarily whether or not Hinduism is right for you. It can tell you if that temple, and perhaps that sect, is right for you.
The main thing to be understand is that Hinduism is not a religion where one can get to heaven - or liberation - simply by bearing the burden of beliefs. They must be laden as oblation onto the path of practice in which you, and only you, are responsible for the result.
Read scriptures, put them into practice. Temple-going is indeed a form of practice. But do not forget that the temple, the kingdom of heaven, is within.