@joe
There are no known facts about a soul. In all the investigation the soul is merely a manmade construct and nothing more. Life, however, is real. the lifeforce can be best described as energy. Since energy cannot be destroyed only transformed it is highly likely that your life force dissipates.

" believe there is simply "nothing" after you die. Now after a lot of thought, I have begun to strongly disagree with this idea."

Did you experience anything before your brain developed and started to store memories? Dead brains stop working, this is not an idea, it's an observable fact, so until someone offers a shred of objective evidence beyond wishful thinking and anecdotal rhetoric why would anyone believe a dead brain can experience anything?

" The reason why is because the same people that believe nothing is experienced after death also believe everything came from absolutely nothing."

Well I am extremely dubious that they do, as that claim has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, and I have never heard an atheist make this claim. Though I have heard many religious apologists like William Lane Craig try to assert that atheism requires this, which is not just duplicitous it is a logically fallacious use of argumentum ad ignorantiam. In order to test the claims that something can come from nothing, or the logical negation of it that nothing can come from nothing (theists have and do make this claim btw including WLC) we would need nothing in order to be able to test it. Atheists generally don't assert things they have no evidence for in my experience, and are cautious in their arguments, whereas theists are not.

"So, considering no time would pass inside of nothing,"

Well there you go, where exactly did you get nothing in order to test that claim? Theists are forever making bald assertions as if they are fact, then when you point out they have no evidence they ask you prove the opposite is true, as if rejecting a claim is the same as making a contrary claim.

"if something (everything) CAN emerge from nothing then wouldn't it be the case that after death nothing would be experienced for no time at all and then something would emerge once again out of this nothing which would be considered our Afterlife. I am genuinely excited to hear some other points of view on this. Thank you."

I reject the premise you're basing your argument on, as I have yet to see any evidence demonstrated that something can come from nothing. You'd also have to demonstrate evidence that 'nothing' in the context you're using it is non-temporal. When you can do all that you'd still need to demonstrate some objective evidence for an afterlife. I fear all you've offered is wild speculation based on some unsound premises.

Before my brain existed and was able to interact with the physical world I experienced 'nothing', I have no reason and no evidence to believe that will suddenly change when it ceases to function.

Its interesting reading the comments on the big bang and 'nothing', Firstly I would like to say that the great thing about the model of the theory is that it perfectly matches the data and conforms to the known laws of physics (as oppose to say, walking on water).

Now I think it should be made clear that the term 'The Big Bang' is used in two different ways, you have the model which is the entire history of the known universe of the last 14 billion years (roughly) from an original hot dense state.
This went on to expand, cool and galaxies formed from those very conditions, And this is highly accurate.

However, You also have the big bang event, the beginning of space time, where you have the initial singularity and time = zero.
This is a prediction, that is not entirely accurate in comparison to the big bang model, due to being based on general relativity but in that scenario it is wrong because you ignore quantum mechanics.

What should be said is that there could have been an initial moment, But it will not be clear and concise until we work out how quantum mechanics and gravity work together.

In actuality what is more accurate to say is that the big bang is simply something that happens, a phase the universe goes through.

As for 'nothing', I also find this interesting, I believe many take it from what Lawrence Krauss says, which is fine.
But you must note that when you go down to the scale of an electron, by even observing it, you are privileging what you see and that is not the essence of an electron and it is actually in a super-position.