Dinesh D'Souza on Life After Death: The Atheist Delusion

In this provocative essay, Dinesh D'Souza argues that the atheist critique of life after death is actually irrational. He takes on Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and more to say their arguments lack evidence.

speedykid

07/16/2011 03:14:07 AM

To all the atheist keep this in mind if I believe in Jesus, which I do, and I do what is right in Jesus's eyes & when I die I find out that theirs no such place as Heaven I lose nothing. But if you do all the days of your life dont except Jesus in your heart & do not turn your wicked ways & yawl die then find out that there is a such wonderful & beautiful place as a Heaven then you'll lose everything just because you can't see it the way scientist want to. They can't see air but they know it's there. John 20:29c bless are those who have not seen and yet have believed

Gandoffo

12/12/2010 12:08:56 PM

If you believe in God, then you should know that the spirit of God exists outside of time. This means that when you die, your spirit will also exist outside time. It wouldn't matter if it were a second ago or tens of millions of years ago in earth time. But unfortunately you only get one life on this earth, and if you are not of the generation who will be born to die like any other, but escape it by the coming of God's kingdom on earth, then your spirit will be outside time when you die. At the coming of the Kingdom, time will cease to exist also, and people will not die of sickness or old age or infirmity, but may still do so through injury or accident or recklessness. It 's entirely plausible that those who have died and are as spirits will be reincarnated as the children of those living in the transformed world with God as sovereign ruler on earth. This is only possible because parity will have been achieved at that point between earth and God's Kingdom, i.e. God will rule the material as well as spiritual realm. None of this is really new news. If you read the bible, or even just think about what is plausible, realistic or achievable, then you will reach a similar conclusion. The bumfluff about the resurrection and all the rest of it is pure shite. There will be no skeletons rising up out of the ground or dead people coming back to life. But for children born in such a world, they are "born again" or "born to eternal life" etc etc. Their body is new, but their spirit has been here, ONCE before. Furthermore, this is all perfectly in keeping with the traditions of the three monotheistic faiths, the Abrahamic, Christian and Islamic traditions. What's more is that, although there is no such thing as continued reincarnation, the righteous will come again, and if you are a Christian and believe in Jesus, then he will be one of them. So as you can see, he is no different than other person of good faith and is not given any kind of 'special treatment'. Another point to clear up: The Virgin Mary: Utter tripe promulgated as usual by gullible fools. Ever notice that wherever 'she' appears, it's always accompanied by some white bright light, a beatific smile and some 'miracle'. Well, I'm afraid this is claptrap and if you have read anything of Satan's works, you will know he is a very accomplished deceiver. I'm sorry but this is one of his greatest deceptions.

jeaja

03/03/2010 10:10:30 PM

???? What??? So, fancy talk aside people, what exactly do you believe via the Bible if you believe in God that is? I love how it says, "God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise", and from what I'm reading here I'd say the Bible is right on target. It's absolutely amazing how we can dance around the truth which has been in front of us, all these 'centuries' later, pump ourselves up with eloquent words and speeches just to salve our conscience, when all along way down deep inside we know that God does exist but like a child with his hands over his ears stomping his feet in fury stating, "I will not believe, I will not believe, no no no, I don't have to believe". Lastly, I love the expression that goes, "in the end, when it all boils down to it, we will ALL find out who was right, and who was wrong", but something tells me too many folks are going to have a very very rude awakening, when they find out what their stubborness actually cost them. God gave us all a chance and 'we' chose which path to follow. See you on the other side folks.

kirk

11/29/2009 08:43:14 PM

The number of logically possible objects is vast. So let's say that I claim a logically possible "soul" that carries on after my physical death. Let's say a physically possible soul is this logically possible soul that exists "between the quarks and bosons" or some other claim about its substance. Then suppose that every human that ever lived produced a soul or had a soul produced for it's use. Now what? What can you say about this soul? Is it happy or sad or mad or red or blue or pining for the fjords or what? How can I know what my soul is doing right this minute while I type this message? How can I test this conjecture? My agnosticism about this soul is like my agnosticism about the teacup orbiting Neptune or my agnosticism about Saint Nick - it's my adult stance that I cannot make tactical decisions regarding completely extraneous phenomena. Not now, not ever. I still have an ethical code and exhibit moral behavior because these rules have demonstrable value minute by minute right here and right now. Reciprocal altruism is a good trick. I am not going to gamble away my paycheck because I have no soul to call my own. How am I the worse of without a soul or an eternal future?

davidwhitley

11/20/2009 02:01:32 PM

I’m amazed at the utter simplicity and underwhelming nature of D'Souza’s article. Not that I expected greatness, but you can find the likes of this on thousands of blogs all over the net, by people that have never written a book, maybe never even read one… He fails to understand, or more accurately fails to admit to understanding, that the so-called afterlife - just like the supernatural beings presupposed by it - are a thing to be proven by those who posit them, not disproved by those who fail to consent to belief in them. It is nothing more eloquent, thought-provoking or original than claiming that atheists are responsible for proving that god(s) do not exist, rather than theists being responsible for proving that they do. I think that all informed, educated voices for at least a century have accepted at a minimum that the person making the positive assertion bears the responsibility of proving that assertion. Failure to belief despite a lack of proof for that assertion is what we call "faith"…not “science”, when the assertion is backed up with supportive evidence, then you'll see people like Harris, Dennett, Dawkins and the other billion or so rational thinking individuals on Earth "believe".

monitajb

11/19/2009 02:51:57 PM

This is just a remarkably bad article. Mr. D'Souza is essentially employing the exact tactic he is criticizing: oversimplification and willfull ignorance. Making no mention of materialism v. duality just renders this piece devoid of credibility.

chall8987

11/18/2009 01:02:26 AM

This is all very fine and good if you accept mind-body dualism, but in the modern world after Descartes, we don't. Frankly, the mind is synonymous with the soul, and we can measure the functions of the mind. We can also correlate the stopping of mental functions with the stopping of the vital signs of the body amongst other measures for seeing the inextricable mind-body connection. All of this together supposes that if the mind (soul) is linked inextricably to the body, then it must die with the body. Don't mind this, though. Like evolution, the heliocentric universe before it, and the belief in a rational universe before it, the lack of an afterlife will be ignored for a good long while before society sucks up it's need to stick around and accepts death as inevitable.

Advertisement

Life After Death: The Evidence

Advertisement

Advertisement

DiggDeliciousNewsvineRedditStumbleTechnoratiFacebook