Whether intended or not, this question is tainted by the kind of self-righteous condescending triumphalism exhibited by ardent religious "believers" who profess to "pity" the poor, faithless dead "unbelievers" who must now: (a) spend time in a sentence of purgatory; (b) go to Hell and burn for an eternity; or (c) reincarnate on the earth plane to work off all their rotten karma. Not a very enlightened "spiritual" attitude in any case, it would seem.

Although I do not agree with Hitchens' materialist metaphysics (and found his support of the Iraq war utterly baffling), I am sympathetic to his (and others') criticisms of conventional religions and their "gods" for just this very reason.

If my own metaphysics is based on my own attempts to grapple with my various experiences and my interpretations thereof, I am willing to grant that Hitchens' beliefs--however different from mine--were an honest and truthful accounting of his own experiences and thoughts.

Might he now have very different experiences and thoughts? I suppose there might be a way to speculate about this without sounding too harsh, unseemly, or too "I told you so-ish". But sometimes the better part of wisdom is silence.

Given the vision of the afterlife systems suggested by the explorations of Bruce Moen and Robert Monroe, one might surmise that Hitch will eventually find himself in a Belief System Territory for atheists.  Both astral explorers and Jesus alllege that the priinciple of like attracts like governs the afterlife.  Thus, we are not just taken to a lecture hall in Paradise for a debriefing session that corrects all oiur misconceptions.  But what might a BST for atheists be like?  After all, the very fact that they survive death already shatters one of their preconceptions. Does their skepticism initially confine them in a prolonged state of soul sleep, apparently like "the souls statues" in an astral swamp sometimes viewed by astral explorers?  I wish Hitch well of whatever his spiritual journey entails.

It's strange how one person who is notable for contributing his intellect and passion to journalism and restrictions held by religion is put forward with assumptions. He was an open minded man who simply rebelled against organized religious limitations and so forth. Its true that he may go to the void, but I think he did not have full belief in any certainty of what happens after death. He wasn't trying to pray or act because of his beliefs but simply tried to justify his lack of belief. Regardless, I think he might find his way around.

If anyone's interested Hitchens had an incredibly interesting debate with William Lane Craig last year that can be watched from the link below - it is well worth the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

My thoughts most closely mirror DocM's...I had significant differences on many of Hitch's commentaries...most notably those on the founding fathers, which if accurate would not have resulted in a declaration of independence nor constitution...regardless, I do think his mental acuity, from a soul level would have served him well enough to carry him forward.   Oddly, I do not get any sense of his being stuck...and I've gotten the contrary impression from others.  Blessings to you Mr. Hitchens...fair winds and following seas.

Lakeman: "While some tiresome religious apologists may steadfastly maintain that only "God makes postmortem survival possible," postmortem survival as a natural artifact of the laws of non-physical existence"

And your evidence for this mindless pontification is...?
And the revelant creative laws of nonphyiscal eixistence are?  Duh, not a clue!

Lakeman: "One does not need to proffer phony sympathy or compassion for such as him. He'll do just fine without genuflecting before all the old idols."

Yes. the only people capable of genuine sympathy and conpassion are those who agree with you.  Evangelical leaders like Rick Warren who either  hosted his debates or debated him considered him a good friend.  Nor do you have any clue whether Hitch "will do just fine" or not.  His savage slander of one of the greatest souls of the 20th century, Mother Teresa, just MIGHT betray a judgmental spirit which holds him back on lower planes. 

By the way, early Christianity provides the firset literary evidence for the practice of routine postmortem soul retrievals.  And I hate to break this to uou, Lakeman, but shamanism thrives in oral cultures that evolve over time.  So we have no evidence of shamanistic soul retrievals from the pre-Christian era.

And yes, I know of many beautiful conversions from atheism to theism.  Many of these are atheists who believed in no afterlife, and yet, were converted  through an NDE encouther with Christ.  I consider any progress toward Pure Unconditional Love beautiful, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Regarding atheists:    I thought I would throw in this piece:

I have found the ardent atheists, who radiate a controlled hatred towards Christianity, to be most religious in their own way, stuck in a partial belief system, fearful of what is beyond their knowledge, and feel safer in their small and enclosed mindedness. Many seem to want revenge against the church for some perceived medieval harm upon themselves, even though they don't believe they existed then. 

But I have found open minded atheists, who are brave and true researchers of truth, to be most easily able to come around to believing in God when the discussion begins as Socrates advised us - First define your terms. 

When we define our terms it is seen to be only logical that God exists. God is the sum total of all existence; that great place, space and substance in which all life exists and lives and moves and has its being; is the sum total of all things, of all forces, and of all intelligences. All combined makes up this greater thing, which is God, and all things, forces, intelligences are parts of this greater and total existence. God is the Totality of All Existence and its all permeating encapsulating, place, space, substance.

Ardent atheists acknowledge the existence of things they can see immediately around them, and yet they deny the existence of God the total existence, place, space and substance, of which all things, forces, intelligences, are parts of, and in which we live and move and have our being. 

It is not blind belief to believe in the existence of our soul and to believe in God. It is simply a matter of defining them and realising that they both exist - one as our conscious existing self and one as the Sum Total of all existence. 

When we believe in our own existence as consciousness, and when we believe that the Sum-Total of all things and of all energies and forces must exist and that that Sum Total is what we call God, and when in contemplation we join our own existent consciousness with the Great Total, that is we open up to it, then our consciousness expands and heightens and begins to know its potential and become one with the great One.

Christ and other teachers have taught us that we must first believe if we are to know the truth. He did not mean to believe in something partial like an unkown idea or an imagining, but to believe in Truth in its parts and its Sum Total, to believe in God the Total, the all encompassing and permeating, the underlying, overriding, origin and eventuality. A belief in an imagined partial concept may or may not exist as a reality, but the Greater Reality must by logic exist because its parts exist. Our believing in It and believing in our own existence, is not an error or a limiting belief system, but a liberation, for it realisation that the greatest of truths must exist.

It has been my experience that atheists who value truth and who are logically minded will relax and concede that God and Soul exists by this definition/description. I have observed that those who reject the existence of God by this presentation tend to be the fearful who have an emotional aversion to the concept or existence of God in any form, or who have a hatred of Christians and Christianity so severe that their atheism is a product of that hatred.