Re: the weak argument of atheism
Personally, I view religion and spirituality in an analytical manner based on both scientific evidence and probability. I am an atheist in terms of probabilities. I am atheist in regard to the three major monotheisms (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) due to the scientific and historical evidence countering the major tenets of each of these religions. In fact, I am an atheist in regard to any religion/cult.
Currently no human being can definitively prove or disprove the (dis)continuation of life after death. The desire of religious people to place the onus on atheists to disprove the existence of God is absurd. I would argue that the human deisre to envision the immortality of the 'soul' stems from an emotional and psychological need to cope with loss. This desire and promise of eternal life has also been utilized historically for political purposes in order to force the poor and marginalized to accept their current human condition in exchange for the guarantee of everlasting life and peace. Both, in my opinion, are emotional cudgels that seem to explain the ferocity with which people defend their religion. However, neither the comfort of faith nor the peace religion can provide are evidence for life after death.
Hopefully my preceding paragraph was not too far off topic. My main intention was to illustrate that I can be considered agnostic (without knowledge) concerning the continuation of life after death, but, from my own scientific and historical knowledge I consider there to be a greater probability that there is no life after death. My view on life after death similarly applies to my view on the existence of God.
It's estimated that $68 trillion will pass down from Boomers to millennials. Here's how ultra-rich families can do the most amount of good with what they inherit.