The dilemma, when considering questions of the soul and an afterlife, seems to revolve around what we, as mortal humans, wish for and what we have evidence for.
As to the soul, I believe it's possible that there's a part of us that has nothing to do with our bodies, and that doesn't necessarily cease to exist when our bodies wear out and stop functioning. It seems completely conceivable to me that our essence continues to exist in some form even after we die. However, since I've never seen or heard or otherwise communicated with anyone's essence after their bodies were interred six feet underground or cremated, that possibility has no more significance than any other item of wishful thinking I might entertain.
The same rationale applies to considerations of an afterlife. If our essence dies with our bodies, then why would there be an afterlife? If, on the other hand, our essence outlives our bodies, then it continues to exist in some form or another. But again, I have no more evidence of an afterlife than I have for a soul, so whatever I choose to believe similarly falls into the realm of wishful thinking.
But just as I have no evidence for the existence of a soul, or of an afterlife, I have no evidence to disprove their existence. So they remain nothing more than possibilities among a huge array of possibilities.
And, as such, from an operational standpoint, they make no difference in how I go about living my life on a day-to-day basis.
Which brings me back once again to the same place that countless other metaphysical discussions have left me. It's all very interesting, but I simply don't know. That's what makes me an agnostic.
__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."
Clarence Darrow | 
Linear Mode
