How does this imply that it is an established fact that there is no afterlife? I only said that it is what people want to hear. I said that there is insufficient basis for believing these things, not that they're false.
You referred to the alternative as an unpleasant truth. Saying that one of the options is a truth, is claiming that that option is the one that reflects reality.
Alright, an unpleasant likelihood, then. From what we do currently know, our bodies are machines that can break and eventually do break. On the surface of things, it appears that thoughts are activity taking place in the brain. Therefore, based on what is known, it very much appears that when the brain stops, the thoughts stop. People often will accept the idea of an afterlife, because it is easier to accept than the unpleasant idea that you just stop. From what we can see of the relationship of the body to life, the body seems to just be a machine. There is no evidence to indicate that after death you live on somewhere else, but it kind of seems like you wouldn't if your brain stops working. Anything might be different from what the evidence shows, but in the absence of a contrary indication, I will go with the evidence. It would not be justified to say that there is definitely no afterlife, but it doesn't appear that there is.