"Death is an awful horror." So states Michael Viljuen.
His statement falls into the same category.
I don't know where he learned his philosophy, but the reality of death is that it is the normal end of temporal existence.
In other words, death is a natural part of life.
What's the big problem?
Nothing in existence is permanent, and the more ready we are to accept this, the more rational we will become about a perfectly normal ending of existence.
One day ends, and another begins. Life's like that, so stop worrying, and spreading unwarranted fear about "awful horrors."

Aaah...well..nothing quite like a challenge eh :)

<to the infantile hope of life after death proposed by religion. He then challenged Christians to argue their case as to why their faith in the afterlife should not be described as blind.>

1/ INFANTILE?

The qualifications of Christianities foremost proponent.. Paul.

a) Educated at the feet of "Gamaliel" (search that one urselves)
b) Hebrew of the Hebrews.. of the tribe of Benjamin.
c) Circumcises on the 8th day according to the Law.
d) A Pharisee by position, status and learning.

It is he who personally claims an encounter with the Risen Christ.
His claim is corroborated by Luke, the author of Luke/Acts.

The lives of the disciples/Apostles were transformed after Pentecost from timid fraidycats to those like Peter, who just days before had said "No......I don't know him"...into bold Knights of the Gospel saying publically "This Jesus who YOU crucified by the hands of lawless men"

BLIND?
Our faith is no blinder than the belief that Cook began white settlement of Australia.

Death stalks all of us... we never know when it might occur.. it might happen to me before the end of this sentence.....

Nope.. still here :)

Moreover.. living with a glorious living present reality of Christ's presense, and a secure hope of a future in His blessed presence.

1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, wehave peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope.

5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. (Rom 5:1-5)

I'm always happy for threads like this.. one can never be accused of 'Bible Bashing' when a challenge is issued :)

Throughout history these so called unbelievers have come thirteen to the dozen,and as yet have not proved anything,all the ifs and buts about science and their theories are open and can be discredited,and those that do believe in the Scientific god? not GOD?,has not as yet given or made any substantial reasons as to why they believe in this god? called science.But on a lighter note,the Blacks in South Africa did survive the daily oppression of the white parasites that controlled their lives,their values were their faith and hope in their creator,they have survived

Michael Viljoen,

you are incorrect, the burden of proof is on those who believe in life after death not on the unbelievers, you present belief as "proof", which is nonsense. Our consciousness is a product of brain function nothing more, the longevity of a delusion is not proof of its validity.

Polycarp,

you can quote from your sacred text until Doomsday(!) and I could quote from mine(if I had one) that would not prove anything.

The same tired old pseudo/philosophical claptrap, containing all the usual unsubstantiated assumptions, and setting the same old logical trap - inviting the reader to disprove a negative.
Central to the writer's thesis is the most nonsensical assumption of all - that there is something called a 'soul' which (it seems) is an allegedly indestructable essence of 'self'. Not one iota of proof has ever been offered for the existence of the 'soul' - indeed life experience clearly indicates that with the death or disablement of neurological connections comes a concommitent disappearance of function and awareness until when all neurological connections are gone, all personality is also gone, and with it the 'self awareness' so beloved and relied upon by proponents of an aware 'life after death' - ie the survival of personal identity.
All this based on a couple of silly women running around about two thousand years ago screaming out 'he has risen'!

The very notion of the survival of the incorporeal 'self' does not arise from observation or deduction. The notion is no more than the outcome of a logical impossibility - that being the impossibility of contemplating our own non-existence - and tied to that logical impossibility the corresponding fear of the existential void brings forth a desperate belief in personal continuity. That belief has been the driving force behind countless acts through the years of cruelty and barbarism as each group finds their own guru and applies their own rituals and sanctions.

"Death is an awful horror'? No, it's a natural part of life, which is all ebb and flow, transience, change. Death is only horror if you fail to grasp this.

35 years ago I believed I was about to die from a fall in the Himalayas. My only regret was that I had at times been suicidal, and my family would not know that at that time I was peaceful and happy.

I survived to play a longer innings, the end of which I will accept without fear or "horror." I'm surprised that either a Christian or a philosopher would not do the same.