Well — I didn't say specifically just science did I ? I also said critical thinking and philosophy, which you've arbitrarily discarded, as if that gives your proclamation weight. It doesn't.See, here it is again. Subtle, but it remains.
Critical thinking and science (leaving out philosophy for my point) prove nothing more or less about afterlives than any "believer's" position. We just have to continue to be honest about this. Yes, critical thinking and science certainly prove many things people "believe" to be false. However, the afterlife question remains unaddressed by science, and I think the hard problem of consciousness remains pretty intractable as well.
Its a nit picky thing I realize, but the slippery slope is very real. Its a way of providing the high ground to one metaphysical worldview without merit. (In my view)
If a person doesn't get that the combination of science, critical thinking, and philosophy does prove ( provide a valid inference ) that afterlives as many people tend to think of them is impossible, then they just don't get it. It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of logical deduction — deductive reasoning. That is very different than belief or faith, which has a long history of eventually being proven to be nothing more than myth and superstition.
So either people get it or they don't — probably because they don't want to, or they are wedded to a belief system that they'd have to abandon. It's probably not because they aren't intelligent enough to get it. To make progress they need to recognize that if they want to refute the argument, then they need to find logical flaws within the argument – not try to switch arguments or make counter-proclamations.
To give you some help, if afterlives are to be defined as a continuity of personhood following the death of the body, then only by being able to identify that a person in an afterlife is the same person referred to in this life, can afterlives ( as defined ) be validated. To invalidate the position that the two situations cannot be sufficiently the same to validate afterlives ( as defined ), you'd have to invalidate the role that the material plays in shaping our personhood — which includes all material variables that constitute or contribute to our identity, including our personality. Can you do that?
NOTE: The astute will notice here, that having access to an alleged afterworld is not necessary to be able to resolve this problem.
HINT: In this discussion a couple of loopholes have been identified, but they still end-up with afterlives ( as defined ) as being something else altogether.