It's not a yes or no question
This is true, but I'm still going to go with 'no' due to there being little but social conditioning and fear that makes us want to believe.
For there to be an afterlife you have to make wild and outlandish concessions within the framework of perceivable reality:
1. There must be a supreme being in control of the universe
2. We must matter in the context of divine providence.
3. Humans are owed immortality.
To have an afterlife means that the nature of reality must bend to fit our own wishes without a shred of scientific evidence. Occam's razor - The requisites for an afterlife are far too complicated to be true.
It's our own relative scale of reality we have for ourselves that make us seem cosmically significant. At its core it's a return to the archaic idea of Geocentricism as an overriding thought process.
Earth taken by Voyager a poxy 4 billion miles away. You know, for context.
That said, there is the wide field pertaining to the philosophy of metaphysics and there are endless interesting segways in to other areas of thinking that don't necessarily have to apply to the straight-forward scientific method and are of some interest, but still at best, a long shot. Myself and Wacky have had extensive conversations on the merits of logic versus metaphysical philosophy and it's hard to make a distinction where one ends and the other begins. Basically, to believe in an afterlife is not a simple process. One must make concessions across the board to make it fit. It's our wish that there was an afterlife that makes us entertain the idea and make it fit to begin with; more than just a little bit logically shaky methinks, and not really the best of platforms to start reasoning from.