Mr XC: I removed the spam urls here but left the content in place in case you needed to see it. Feel free to delete.
If you're going to argue that abiogenesis is not science, it might help to define science first.
Science is the formulation of natural explanations for observable phenomena in the universe. Abiogenesis (the emergence of life from non-life), while not yet observed itself, is a natural explanation for the observable phenomenon of life. It is therefore a scientific hypothesis, and yes, it is science. What it is not (yet) is a theory.
Though some natural selection may have occurred in the process, abiogenesis should not be classified as chemical evolution. It may have been a rapid, non-cyclical process instead. We freely admit that we have no clue how it happened.
At least until we do observe a second abiogenesis in a lab or in nature (positing that the event which produced us was the first), not only do we stick to speculation as to how it happened, but we refrain from stating 100% certainty that it did happen. If evidence of intelligent design were to emerge (say, actual physical impressions of fingerprints in our DNA) we would soon abandon the hypothesis that we are the products of abiogenesis. We would then try to determine whether the designer was a god, an alien or an extinct Earth creature, and in all three cases start to hypothesise about the abiogenesis and evolution of that being, if any.
This is the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a faith position. We assume a scientific hypothesis for practical purposes as the best current explanation until a better one comes along, at which point we chop and change. We're not precious about it at all, at least until it accumulates enough evidence to be declared a theory. A man with a faith position defends it to the end, because he usually expects no contradictory (or even supporting) evidence to present itself.
Another difference is that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, which means there must be some hypothetical event which demonstrates it is false. Our abiogenesis is falsifiable because we might find firm evidence of a creator, like a signature or a work log billions of years old. By comparison, what would falsify the intelligent creation of life? Nothing. Even if we achieved abiogenesis in a lab, it might be the case that although abiogenesis is possible, we were still designed.
On the basis of this last point, I submit to you the idea that intelligent creation of life is a faith position where abiogenesis is not. There may be additional ways to establish this comparison, but I'll leave it at that for now.
I've seen the genetic code argument before, you know. The idea is that all codes are intelligently designed, so the existence of one in DNA proves a designer. That's an argument from ignorance because there is no evidence that a code is impossible without a designer. Further, if you present this argument, I can provide examples of naturally occurring codes which have nothing to do with life, like the means by which mineral crystals can transmit their structure to non-crystallised material.
There's another side to the genetic code argument which states that it's impossible for new information to appear naturally. We've been over that here.
It is possible to be rational about some things and irrational about others, just as it's possible to be right about some things and wrong about others. We all do it; we think of a shirt as lucky, we play the lottery despite the expected outcome, we approach the beatiful woman who we know will knock us back. No human being is rational all of the time.
Religion often invites and allows irrationality by discouraging people from seeking evidence or questioning doctrine. Scientists and other such intellectually driven people might even relish the chance to relax their faculties now and again, and be swept up in the community of a shared belief.
It is also possible to be both rational and religious because being rational doesn't mean being right. Incorrect premises in people's reasoning can lead them, perfectly rationally, to an incorrect conclusion. The premises on which religions base their truth claims are incredibly hard to pin down.
Your examples of rational theists are not good examples. Franklin was a deist for much of his life, and even as an elderly Christian held "some Doubts as to [Jesus's] divinity". Einstein did not believe in a personal god, or anything which could contravene the laws of the universe. He effectively thought God WAS the laws of the universe, and this is to what he referred when he used the name. He was something like a pantheist, and basically said so: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all being." I encourage you to read up on Franklin, Einstein and Spinoza. They're fascinating people.
Short answer is that they don't. Atheists generally leave open the possibility that there's some kind of god. It's just that they judge the probability of that to be so small that it can be dismissed. It's like living in Los Angeles knowing it could be destroyed by an earthquake any day; you can't say it'll never happen, but you take the overpass to work anyway.
Atheism is a-theism, the lack of a belief in gods. It's not a positive belief in the absence of gods. It's not a belief or a faith at all, simply a conclusion. The premises leading to that conclusion are roughly as follows:
- A god is an incredible, unprecendented, almost unimaingable being.
- To accept the existence of an incredible, unprecendented, almost unimaginable being would require strong, definite evidence of some type.
- No strong, definite evidence for any such incredible, unprecendented, almost unimaginable being is available.
There are all sorts of stoushes going on over what constitutes evidence, whether a priori arguments can be accepted in lieu of evidence and even whether we can decide this rationally at all without a god to provide logic, but it still boils down to these premises.
I've never heard an atheist say "I don't believe in anything." Atheists don't neccesarily believe there is no god. Many are simple without a belief in God.
Here is more on the definitions of atheism and agnostic.
You're question is one of those questions that is generally on the "how to annoy an atheist" list of questions. Such questions are highly silly. Do you actually think we don't believe in anything? Don't you see how we can have beliefs about food preferences, clothing preferences, and entertainment preferences? And not have beliefs in gods?
There are literally hundreds of gods you don't believe in. I don't believe in those either. We are atheists in reference to all of those gods.
"I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts
Enjoy this video on what Pat Condell believes: