If there is no life (consciousness) after death, that's all she wrote for the atheist and the theist. Nothing there and no one to witness.
If there is an afterlife, the theist will have one belief confirmed and surely then know what injunctions for the good life were for and what they should be/have been. These will not necessarily be confirmations of known earthly devotions. But perhaps these won't be the concerns of the re-awakened. In the case of a waiting room for the next reincarnation, the concerns may involve what choices there are and pleas to the prime mover: "Oh, please not that." If there is a singular cause, one might be occupied with how to communicate news to the ones left in this vale of tears. No matter, in short, the theist will be in good shape. The great steamroller will have left all "arguments" smoothed into one in its infinite wake.*
The atheist will have at least reason to know one way or the other, if rational thought was incorrect and there is a someone/-thing to believe in, a then moot question because there he/she/it/they--that other--will be revealed right there, right? If the life after affords the atheist correction, fine, but the default choice will be not belief but knowledge certain for which the true atheist, and agnostic,** will be pleased because persistent curiosity is now satisfied.
Can the two, believer and nonbeliever, coexist in this life with the prospect of nothing or something after? The atheist _believes_ this is possible, even preferable, and does not need to proselytize that singular view. Same goes for the believer. We must assume here that this life now is intended for the believer and all others no matter how people are working through it in their own ways and traditions.
Thus, discord in this life over one view or the other stems from fervor and acts of moral superiority. Would that the proselytizers and doomsday accelerators just live and let live.
I wonder if the new state of Liberland can survive its state motto, because this too is a value, a stance, a belief above the fray, "To live and let live." History has not been kind to the kind and considerate, but both of these can be embraced in a time and a place and a society. Look carefully here and there. We have it, we have seen it, and some have experienced it and lived in the hope and trust that such a state is good for all regardless of differences.
Our condition, no matter persuasion, is secular. We are of this world. Given that same starting point and condition, we can shelter the family and persuasions of humankind. If there is something to spread the word about, it is that you can have what you want for you if you leave others alone and they leave you alone. Failures to do that are against the golden rule, a rule no one human or group, faith-based or rational, can lay exclusive claim to. It is for and of humanity which we have been thrown into this vale without our choice and without incontrovertible evidence as to which ways other than these--kindness, consideration, do-unto-others--are best. We know these work. We know them as good.
___
* A monochrome afterlife must be one about which we must inquire.
** Some decry the agnostic as a kind of cowardly lot. A defense of this position may be in the offing.
