Once your dead, your dead! Sic Transit Gloria Mundi! no amount of wishful thinking will make an iota of difference.

100 percent. It's already established.

Answers saying zero are the height of human arrogance.

Life is just what separates us from inorganic matter. The existence we know, the dynamic world we live in, will cease to exist for the "person" we see ourselves as (the way our atoms are currently constructed). But many of our organic material will go on to do fun stuff, like fertilize the soil or something, I don't know, there's a lot of possibilities. We'll no longer be conscious, most likely anyway, and some of what made us "us" will separate, but it will go on.

The total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed. Matter can be changed. We will change, but life will go on.

Zero. You might live on in the fond memories of your loved ones, or anyone remembering you what you lived for, stood for, left behind as a legacy, etc. That's it, so do your best in this life, because it is your one shot.

>>I’m pure atheist however I do think there may be some form of a afterlife.<<

You're not a "pure atheist." You still have a great deal of religion/mysticism in your head.

The odds of there being an "afterlife" are zero. There are no such things as souls because there is no way to imprint human intelligence and personality onto a volume of air, any more than you could imprint it on a pile of leaves, or a section of concrete wall.

One of the widespread failings among atheists is that we timidly back away from certainty. But when you're considering the possibilities of the mystical, there are two sorts of arguments -- I refer to them as arguments in the Domain of Diamonds and arguments in the Domain of Fluff.

ONLY an argument advanced in the Domain of Diamonds -- the rock-solid domain of science and reason -- requires an answer in the Domain of Diamonds. Arguments advanced in the Domain of Fluff, the domain of imagination and artsy-metaphorical fantasy, can be answered in the Domain of Fluff.

The two domains even have their own linguistic set, and modes of thought. If someone says "Life is a river," he's speaking metaphorically -- using Domain of Fluff language -- because life is obviously not a river. Knowing that, I can switch into artsy-metaphorical mental mode and begin trying to imagine how life is LIKE a river, in the speaker's view.

ALL religious arguments are Domain of Fluff arguments. "God is the foundation of our lives!" is no more a literal argument than Pooh is a real bear. It's pure fluff.

The thing is, NOTHING can be proven in the Domain of Fluff, it can only be endlessly argued, as a succession of battling artsy-metaphorical viewpoints.

But in the Domain of Diamonds, things CAN be proven. Things can be shown to exist, assertions can be shown to be true, or false. None of the Domain of Diamonds is a matter of viewpoint. If someone says "Kryptonite is an element on the Periodic Table," I can PROVE he's wrong. I can also suggest where he went wrong, confusing fictional kryptonite with real krypton gas.

The mistake we atheists make when godders make assertions as to the existence of supernatural superbeings is to back away from Domain of Diamonds certainty on our side AS IF THEY HAVE MADE A DOMAIN OF DIAMONDS ARGUMENT on their side. We demand of ourselves that element of scientific doubt, saying "You can't prove a negative. You have to allow the possibility that their god exists."

But you don't. If they make a sloppy, fluffy claim on their side -- "God exists!" -- we have every right to make a sloppy, fluffy claim back: "No he doesn't."

When they make a factual claim, one subject to rock-hard real-world Domain of Diamonds verification -- "Evolution is a religion and doesn't work!" -- we can reply in the same mental mode with the certainty backed by masses of evidence from a dozen different fields of real science: "Evolution is not a religion, and yes it does work. It's so simple even children can understand it, so profound it links all of biology into an amazing whole."

We don't have to hold back, saying "Well, MAYBE they're right."

In the Domain of Fluff, you can be an unabashed Level 7 atheist, stoutly asserting that gods do not exist. In the Domain of Diamonds, you can demand THEY prove the contrary, and refuse to allow their silly fantasies into your mind until they do.

Both ways, you can be 100 percent certain gods do not exist, and defensibly so.

The older I get, and the more I’ve seen of life and death, the more utterly idiotic that concept sounds…

Surely atheists and agnostics believe only in a material world or a world that conforms to material reality. Reincarnation is based on a moral view that one needs to do good to avoid coming back as something undesirable. As such, it's a religious view. A spiritual world is also a religious view unless you mean it has a material reality.

We all will find out someday! Nobody knows for sure with evidence. I say I don't know.

The odds of some form of afterlife are much much greater than the odds that a being that created a universe of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars 13,500,000,000 years ago decided to make a teenage Jewish girl pregnant 2000 years ago.

As an agnostic I'll answer in a religious manner (lol)....By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.

That ash, that dust for the most part is oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus. If you want to think it in a spiritual manner or an "reincarnation" manner, how I look at it is that when I'm gone, that dust will provide for the next tree, the blade of grass, the worms....whatever because it's just a constant circle. What you're made of is not destroyed, it's re-used. The Carbon in you at that atomic level could of been part of a T-Rex many many MANY years ago.

None

FUNNY post!

0

I personally believe in reincarnation. This doesn't involve any deity, so it does not affect my atheism. I have my own proof, which I will NOT discuss.

Just because I believe in it doesn't mean everyone should.

Zero. Nada. Nothing. Zip.

Well there is one for pets? "The Rainbow Bridge" but otherwise? Pure fantasy.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Just ask my Atheist cat group (who is ok with me being self-deluding in this manner).

Zero percent chance.

Absolute zero to any kind of an after life. Only religious fools believe in a after life.

to me, "spiritual" means "religion light." i am convinced there is no personal afterlife. the brain generates who we think we are. when it dies, we are gone. our bodies decompose. worm food is useful, and we are eventually recycled, somehow, despite all the stuff that's done to preserve us (unless we're king tut) but apart from whatever legacy, large or small, we've left, we're just gone. gone is gone, dead is dead. rebirth, reincarnation, all that, not possible. there would have to be a soul, and while i like aretha franklin as much as the next person, that's not the kind of soul that would make reincarnation possible. it's all fantasy. odds for any of it: zero. unless you're laying the money down on my table, in which case go for it. i need the dough.

g

I don't believe in any form of afterlife. No heaven, no hell, no reincarnation, no nothing. Death for me is a dreamless sleep for eternity, a one-way trip of our consciousness into oblivion. I believe we are made of matter and energy. Both are eternal, but when we die, they just both scatter away in their separate ways.

To use the approved scientific terminology: absolutely fuck-all.

So, I call myself Agnostic. As such, I say that I don't know what happens after death. I don't call myself An Atheist because that would mean I knew what happens after death. So, are you really pure Atheist?

non sequitur

Absolutely zero

I don't know.

There is no "afterlife". When you're dead, you're dead. That's it, there is no more.
Trying to hedge and think "maybe there is", is NO different than saying "maybe there is a god". Neither can be substantiated.
Anything else is just wishful thinking.