I am an atheist. I am a scitic, animic, and moral nihilist. The base assumptions of this debate are 1. Contradiction is impossible. 2. I exist and am alive. 3. I am the same person as I have been since I have been born.
I will begin by considering what makes me the same person as the person who existed in my body ten years ago. We have exactly two things in common. 1) common experiences/memories. 2) common DNA. But, I also share those things to a lesser or greater extent with my family, with other humans, and with all living things. I could literally live on more by saving several siblings than by saving my own life. I am not a distinct organism, but a part of something greater. When I die, I literally live on in my children, in my family, and in the fabric of life itself.
Not one piece of your argument in this round supports the typical piece of this argument. First and foremost your argument is not clear, are you discussing the relative nature of You, I, or any other single individual living on in life past the point of death, or merely that life exists outside of an individuals death (which obviously is answered continually). Please clarify this point in much more detail so I can actually debate with clarity.
I am not arguing for the typical conceptualization of life after death spewed by religions. I am only arguing for life after death. If you merely wished to post a comment, then you should have used the comments forum to do so. Instead, you have entered into the debate as my opponent, but have not even attempted a counterargument. I think I fairly explicitly argued that an individual continues to live on after they die in a very literal sense. I don't understand how you could have read the debate topic carefully enough to feel qualified to accept my challenge if you don't understand the parameters of the debate.
Fair enough, but I will assert this to the matter of your argument it is in noway clear as to what to debate. If you believe it is fine, but i will most certainly disagree with you as a matter of any fine academic would. It would more than seem that your parameters are missing multiple steps that leave me unable to fit your logic though trying as any good person would I will debate. So, it is most certain to me that DNA, cells regenerating on your body, and family that are closely tied to your genetic association of your bloodline are not precursors toward the afterlife. The one underlying piece of evidence that connects these aspects together is that all are biological qualities. Biological of course means life, and Death is the absence of life in its entirety. As a premed student it is common knowledge that once biological processes fail, there is no return to the before. Only an absence of what was and either a filler of what is to be the replacement or the gap of what your missing. This of course is very problematic and most surely leads to eventual biological failure. The most defining moment of death is the absence of brainwaves, this leads to a loss of consciousness and ultimately the death of the individual. Whether you respond to this is up to you, but I must certainly look forward to this debate.
You are arguing past me. You insist on interpreting the resolution narrowly as the religious conception of life after death. However, as the proponent of the resolution, I clearly defined the resolution outside of the context of religion. I am debating a matter of the physical world, not some fantasy dreamland. The resolution calls for life after death. Death is defined as the removal of life. When an individual dies, its life no longer exists. My argument is that the individual is but a single part of a system. The individual is an organism, yes, but so is the system. Life reproduces itself with modification, but it still reproduces itself. Death is a temporary and local occurrence, and generally life continues onward afterward. Therefore, life exists after death. In other to argue otherwise, you need to assert wholly without reason or justification, the existence of some kind of soul which somehow distinguishes some life from other life. Since to say that souls exist is a positive statement, in the absence of justification, the chances of its being actual approach 0%.
If you truly believe in a life after death you have not made it clear as to possibly what kind of afterlife your are speaking about it (whether it be collective consciousness, Near death experiences that stretch on towards infinity). The one thing I have gathered from your argument though is simply that life continues without the individual in question in respect of after there death. This context is not anywhere near fitting for an end to this argument as it would appear it has gone nowhere.
If though by chance your are speaking of the individuals perspective, then we have something (which is by no means going to be a religious argument as I am not a religious person). In fact the total recall of ones atomic properties (C,H,O,N...) back into the environment is by no means an continuation of the individuals existence. No quantum mechanical property can turn an atom into a human being nor any other form of consciousness (which i am using here to illuminate the closest possible essence of a individual). This sort of soul-like consciousness is now a very valid theory in cognitive neuroscience so to answer the last part of your statement yes there is a soul, only this one is not metaphysical and is in no way capable of stretching passed the biological senescence of an organism.
For sources on the conscious soul and further explanation look up Consciousness: the romantic reductionist view... By Kristof Koch.