Is there life after death or maybe life on other planets?

whats the difference between an atheist and an "extreme" atheist?

atheism is just a rejection of the god claim.

atheism is the lack of belief in the god claim.

atheists would love if the religious could actually put forth a shred of actual proof for their supernatural beliefs but no such proof is forthcoming. instead we're treated to a display of mental gymnastics and word play to convince us that we don't need actual proof, we just need to "trust me,bro" instead.

no thanks.

I find your logic difficult to follow.

Why on a near infinite number of planets is there more likelihood of life than a god?

You would be basing your assumption that as our one planet has life with no proven God in residence, then all these planets must also contain no God even if they do have life.

Personally I would base my case for the visible planets having no God by the fact that the occupants are not all blowing themselves up in order to carry out their spiritual deities wishes.

So life their might be, but the lack of planets being destroyed by nuclear devastation is a sure fire indicator that there is no supreme being to "guide the faithful".

And after ridiculing them as spongers throw them out of their tents and ship the refugees off to Pluto when they come to Earth in their escape pods absolutely starving and destitute?

Where does time or space end? We as humans really know nothing at all. Of course, if you are not religious then life after death seems totally illogical, we see that people die, brain activity ends and then that's it. So in that respect yes proof shows there is no life after death.

However when I think about things, so many possibilities play through my head, what if we are in an endless loop in time? Maybe we are destined to relive our lives over and over again but will never know anything about it? Or is our consciousness transferred to another plane of existence after we take our last breath?

Or maybe there is nothing else. Either way, we can never know one way or the other for sure.

As for life on other planets? There is no proof, but I just can't imagine how we could be the only life in our Universe, I think one day we may develop the technology to prove it, but I don't think any of us alive today will ever see this happening.

Our consciousness is proof we're here for some reason. We're all individuals. Why am I me? I go to sleep every night, and wake up in the morning. I'm me, no one else. Surely there is a reason for this. So, there is something, I believe, after we 'die' here. And we cannot apply our limited human knowledge to how incredible that could be.

In my experience it tends to be people with no evidence of something whatsoever, that start equivocating over what does or does not constitute "evidence" in the first place. Equivocation that if I am forced into I tend to simply say that for me "evidence" has always been a process rather than a thing. The process being 1) Establish as clearly as possible what you are claiming 2) Establish as clearly as possible the things you think support that claim and 3) Explain as clearly as possible how each thing offered in 2 support the claim in 1 and why you think so.

A simple process. One might think. But it is not a process that goes anywhere with the "god" conversation in my experience.

I for one am all for "opening your mind to other ways of thinking" but unfortunately all too often in my experience when someone says "open your mind" they are actually saying "accept what I am saying wholesale without any basis whatsoever". Which is not what I Think being "open minded" means. Not even a little bit.

Being "open minded" to me simply means being willing to adopt a new idea, or divest yourself of an old idea, if given sufficient reason to do so. And I have simply been shown zero reasons ever to even suspect there may be a "god" let alone to actually start beleiving there is one. So there would be nothing whatsoever "open minded" about me beleiving there is one. That would be delusion.

However as a slight nod towards what you are saying, I did myself well over 20 years ago stop asking theists solely for "Evidence of a god" in conversations on the topic. And I entirely avoid the word "proof" because I think that is too demanding. And I did these things because it always ended up in equivicating over what "evidence" is and what "god" is with all their rhetorical hand waving and dodging to distract from the fact they had NOTHING to offer.

So whenever I enter such a conversation nowadays (almost never to be honest) I tend to ask "Do you have any arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning to offer that lends even a modicum of credence to the notion a non-human intelligent intentional agency is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe"? Because if they have nothing for the first half, then the conversation is over. If their idea of "god" differs from the second half then the conversation is also likely over as we are talking about different things than, say, the Monotheistic god of Christianity or Islam or similar and we are just talking past each other.

So it is a sentence that has served be very well in saving my time AND theirs.

Guess what? They STILL got nothing. Despite my casting of this new, wider, more inclusive, less demanding net. Nadda. Zilch. Nuffin. Bugger all. Diddly Squat.

There are any number of hypothesis to the question of why/how we come to find outselves in this universe. And hypothesese are good things. They fuel innovation, immagination, inquiry and intellect. But the fact remains that that vast majority of these hypotheses remain not just slightly, but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated at this time with nothing to move them off a zero credence point. Should that at any point change, or if you yourself become aware of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that I might have missed (and hopefully pass even the most basic of the tests for the common list of fallacy) then I remain as I have always been.... absoutely agog to hear them.

I am not convinced you know what the word "Faith" means given you are misuing it quite a lot. I am also not sure you understand the concept of "Percent" given you are asking "a million percent" sureness on the topic. Surely 100% is the maximum by definition? Yet scientists will often tell you that pretty much nothing in Science is considered 100% true for example.

However I do not think using "faith" or "%" is in and of itself meaningful in the first place for a conversation like this. Rather what you could be doing is thinking of ANY idea.... be it "god" or the "Big bang" or "my wife is cheating on me" or "homoepathy is effecious medicine" and placing every single one on the zero point of a continuum of "belief". One end of the continuum is "Definitely 100% true" and the other is "Defnitely 100% false". And any new idea starts exactly in the middle at the "zero" point.

You can then look for actual reasons to move the idea along that continuum from the zero point. In either direction.

There are many evidences in science for the "Big Bang" for example. So this idea gets moved by each evidence along the continuum TOWARDS "Definitely 100% true" but it never reaches "100%". Nothing does in my opinion. Things just get closer than others. In science for example when something gets very far along it gets the label "Theory". Which is pretty much the highest accolade an idea gets in science. It does not mean the same as "theory" in vernacular speech. "Atomic Theory" or "Evolution Theory" basically means we are as sure about these things being true as science allows. But again no one here claims 100%. And any scientist that does should be reminded of this.

Other ideas like the idea there is a god have no reasons to move them off the 0 point. There would appear to be no evidences for OR against such a hypothesis. So it just languishes on the zero point with anything else people have just dreamed up. Like Leprauchans and fairies.

This does not mean there is a god. This does not mean there is no god. It just means there is nothing there to motivate belief in either direction that I have found. So I dismiss the hypothesis as unsubstantiated at this time and move on without it.

Not one ounce of what I described there is how I treat the big bang or god demends or even requires any "faith" whatsoever. Which is why I suspect you are misusing the word somewhat.