Freedom,

I did define Life in my previous post.  The designative view is a priori statement, and is true even if heaven falls upon hell, and they live happily ever after. The second one (the expressive view) is subjective. It depends upon an individual to give meaning to their life. Also, make note there is difference between meaning and reason of life. E.g. A musician’s meaning of life is to produce blissful and transcendental music; a monk’s meaning, perhaps, could be find an eternal peace. If you ask this question, chances are that you may not get a uniform response. Life is meaningless (a nihilistic view) on its own.You are not the first person to ponder over life and after-life, and certainly will not be the last person to do so.

Many philosophers devoted their life in finding the meaning of life in metaphysical terms. Several philosophers found it necessary – until 19th century – to reconcile their faith and their ideology, and as such had placeholder for faith in their finding. Immanuel Kant on his Critique of Practical Reason said   “I had to suspend knowledge, in order to make room for faith.” 

It’s upon you to give meaning to your life. I know you don’t like to read and links give you an allergy, but the link provides a good primer about meaning of life http://www.iep.utm.edu/mean-ana/

Your thought on after life –

I believe in after life. I once thought about this question. Does life end when i die?. So it was Yes for me, and No for the people who live on. But then i thought how can there be a Yes and No answer to that question and still be correct?. So i came to a conclusion. Yes life does go on after i die. But how can i know that?, I am dead!. No proof that life goes on as Science wants proof. The only logical thing would thus be that one still lives and life goes on. Otherwise life does not go on and should end with you.  

Let me try to simplify it:

Premise A à Person X is dead (No Life, as we know it)

Premise B à Person Y is alive. (There is Life)

Conclusion à There is continuation of life (even if Person X is no more (applying euphemism), hence afterlife)

Let’s do a derivation:

Premise A à Chicken X is dead – in fact, you ate it. (No Life, as we know it)

Premise B à Chicken Y is alive – it’s frolicking in the pen. (There is Life)

Conclusion à There is continuation of life (even if Chicken X kicked the bucket (applying different euphemism), hence afterlife (?))

For vegetarians, let's take an example of cake, and you do bring cake often to discussion.

Premise A à Cake X is dead (You ate it)

Premise B à Cake Y is alive. (It’s somewhere in a shelf in a bakery)

Conclusion à There is continuation of (shelf)-life of cake X (even if cake X cease to exist, hence afterlife (???))

Conclusion à You can have a cake and eat it too.

Now a Joke: I read this joke a while ago:

A Chinese boy goes off to the city to study at a university. Much to his parent's dismay, the boy decides to pursue a degree in philosophy. During his first break from school, over a large duck feast, the boy's father asks him what he has learned so far at school. The boy responds "well, for instance, take this duck here on the table. In philosophy, we learn that there are really two ducks, one duck is physical, here on the table, and the other duck is the idea of a duck that I form in my mind. Both are equally a "duck," even if one is intangible."

Taking all this in, the boy's father sits back, looks across the table, and says "okay then, I will eat the duck on the table and you may dine on the duck in your mind!"

For there to be justified true belief, for a long time it had to meet Plato’s assertion – A statement is true and had to be justified, which later on encountered Gettier’s problem. To make a bold assertion, you need to have testable evidence (Fact – Something that can be demonstrated to be true).

Concluding thoughts: If you can only sell your idea to ten other people, I will accept…never mind, I know who else to avoid. It’s an absurd proposition.