There's a lot of very bizarre death-related stuff some people here take seriously: future simulations of you recreated from historical data, "quantum immortality", big universe with copies of you existing very far away, us living in a simulation, and so on and so forth. It's just that the atheists who believe in such can't call that "afterlife" otherwise they wouldn't be atheists.
edit: I think there's also a very serious case of inconsistency. If you ask someone about "afterlife", they're pretty sure there's no afterlife, but if you come up with an elaborate narrative, for example one where the future AI uses all the digital data and backtracks a simulation of the world to recreate you, so when you die you just wake up in that AI's simulation - they're no longer nearly as sure.
There's no inconsistency, because we take the word 'afterlife' to mean what 99% of humanity means by it, which isn't, y'know, really compatible with the pattern theory of identity.
I've read a fair amount on Less Wrong and can't recall much said about the plausibility of some sort of afterlife. What do you guys think about it? Is there some sort of consensus?
Here's my take:
Edit: People in the comments have just taken it as a given that consciousness resides solely in the brain without explaining why they think this. My point in this post is that I don't see why we have reason to reject the 3 possibilities above. If you reject the idea that consciousness could reside outside of the brain, please explain why.