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

The word extreme I suppose, like everything in life some people are more doctorate in their ideology - love to push their beliefs on other peole. Atheism is the same. No difference between Richard Dawkins and the local priest imo

Enoch Burke and his family are an example of religious extremists. There are plenty of religious people who quietly practice their faith.

Extreme atheists talk regularly about their lack of faith, mock religious people and seem to believe they are more intellectual than believers. Less extreme atheists just don't have faith and don't feel the need to talk about something they don't have. No one suggested that some atheists believe in a god less than others, you either believe or you don't.

Oh that's 1996, this is the much more recent Venus one from 2020 I was thinking of.

Bad idea to put life forms from Venus and Mars in contact.

Organised religion or whatever have faith in a supreme being where as atheist have faith in the big bang. What's the difference ? Both require a certain amount of faith .

Strange, I wondered if anyone else thought that too.

I tend to respect and agree with most of his writings, but I am always a tad concerned when someone is so absolutely sure.

Ahh now, I’m with you on the first bit - atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a deity or deities (I would usually have said absence, as ‘lack’ implies something is lacking - there’s nothing lacking, it’s just not there, ie - no value judgement).

But as for what atheists would love? That strays into the territory of associating atheism with anti-theism, two easily distinguished concepts which are often mistakenly conflated to produce the idea of militant or strident atheists.

Dawkins for example could easily be described as both an atheist and anti-theist, he did promote the concept of the spectrum of theistic probability in his book The God Delusion, although I’d safely say most of the people who recommend the book have never actually read it themselves (it’s a slog), not nearly as interesting as the blind watchmaker or the selfish gene.

I couldn’t recommend any of those books though because the OP made it clear they weren’t interested in that sort of stuff.

Have you considered that there's maybe no God but life after Death or a God and no Life after Death , its best not to dwell on it too much , feel free to believe what you believe and make the most of this life because even if you live to be 90 its short in the grand scheme of things

Regarding life on other planets considering there are 200 billion to 2 trillion Galaxies the odds are there probably is some Alien life elsewhere however the Galaxy we live in is for all intensive purposes a universe in itself because its so vast and so far away from our nearest Galaxy that the technology probably will never exist to visit other galaxies either because its beyond our capabilities or human beings wont survive long enough . There could be 1 Alien life per Galaxy 200 billion to 2 Trillion but we are so far apart from each other none of us will ever meet . Another theory is that Aliens do exist but we are as oblivious to them as Bacteria or insects are to us. They exist on a much higher plane of consciousness

Except Dawkins backs up his assertions with the solid position that there is a sheer lack of evidence to account for the existence/belief in a god or, indeed, gods. Dawkins has also investigated his position and has tested it and had it subjected to tests over numerous decades. He has also debated, argued and discussed his position with many, many, people who are on the other side of the hill, as it were, in an effort to continually test his position.

The local priest believes (assuming his does actually believe), simply because he believes.

Dawkins has a scientific approach. An approach which requires a level of proof before proceeding. The priest simply has theology and made up stories.

Saying there's "no difference" between the two is absolutely ludicrous.

If you could prove with science that God existed, then that would mean he/she/it was very much a part of the physical universe and not a supernatural being or entity.

So it's a little idiotic of Dawkins to claim 'Science proves there is no God'.

You'd think himself would of came to help during Covid

Not yet world Not yet

I understand what you are saying, but extreme is the wrong word. For example, somebody who is vocally islamic, is still just a Muslim, not an Islamic extremist which is another thing entirely. Using the same scale for atheist extremist would need them to be similarly radical. What you are describing is more like a person who is assertively vegan, always pressing their views on others, etc.

Somebody using describing something as "extremely atheists" likely does understand the concept.

What's the difference?

Well for a start, there is absolutely zero evidence of a supreme being. And plenty of evidence that their supposed story of creation is incorrect.

On the other hand, there is quite a lot of evidence that the Big Bang, or an event similar to the Big bang created the universe. Whether the theory is exactly right or not is irrelevant.

That first statement is not even remotely true. There is nothing about "supernatural entity" that states or implies they are not part of the physical universe. Vampires, Witches, Dragons are all supernatural beings. If they existed (they don't) they would exist in the physical universe and could be confirmed via the scientific method.

The various religion's books (on which the main Abrahamic religions are based) are full of stories of "God" (under various names) interacting with the physical universe. The story of creation is literally God shaping the physical universe - therefore interacting with it at that time. And of course, Christ spent 32 years in corporeal form.

So no, it would not be impossible for science to proved God exists because he is supernatural and doesn't interact with the physical universe.

I have come back from the future, I am born on the planet { in the year 2345 (according to your current methods of recording time), but for future generations in the year dot, and die, thanks to the latest medical advances and our diet of only consuming inhabitants of the planet { (which we colonised in the year 6789), or the year dot for some of you, I die in the yea pi.

In answer to the original question, having thought of it for some time, I think no and no

Let me put this another way can you or anyone be a million percent sure in what they believe in? It all requires some level of faith. And before the big bang ? Some gases ! And before the gases ? Something else . The big bang most definitely requires. a leap of faith