Athiesm is not a Religion, and "Believing" in Evolution is not Faith.

[MasterofPun]

Are you aware of the supernatural probability that would have to take place for Evolution to take place? 
You have to believe some crazy stuff happened to believe in Evolution, in my opinion. The universe has so many things that are just right that are so freakishly improbable to ever occur. That definitely qualifies as belief.

[RootRanger]

Anthropomorphic bias - the only people capable of realizing how improbable their existence is are the ones who exist. Given a universe with an incomprehensible large number of planets, and perhaps even an infinite number of such universes, it was inevitable that life would exist on one of these planets as long as the probability was nonzero.

[OldTrees]

Are you aware of the supernatural probability that would have to take place for Evolution to take place? 
You have to believe some crazy stuff happened to believe in Evolution, in my opinion. The universe has so many things that are just right that are so freakishly improbable to ever occur. That definitely qualifies as belief.

1) This is either referring to the universal constants or for specific events.

Universal Constants is the better argument but there is no way to even estimate the probability of one of the constants being any particular value. Thus we cannot make valid claims about it being or not being improbable.

Specific Events is the weaker argument. It claims that the total probability of the specific humans of the specific human species of the specific planet earth is low without then counting the number of simultaneous independent events occurred (different species, different planets, different suns, and different galaxies). It is akin to the counting error of saying "The chance of winning the lottery is so low, therefore everyone that won the lottery did so only because some yet unexplained supernatural cause". If there is a 1% chance of a specific outcome and 1,000 events, we would expect that outcome to show up ~10 times.

2)Anthropomorphic bias
For all non 0 probabilities, if they happened, the probability that they happened is 100%.

[MasterofPun]

Anthropomorphic bias - the only people capable of realizing how improbable their existence is are the ones who exist. Given a universe with an incomprehensible large number of planets, and perhaps even an infinite number of such universes, it was inevitable that life would exist on one of these planets as long as the probability was nonzero.

But that's just it - life can only exist according to very specific circumstances according to modern science. Multiverse theory is kind of automatically out of the question... because of the Great Ugimatchu example. Sort of. Very confusing topic that I like to talk about too much. 

Even in Hexillions of planets, there are still a very large number of things that would have to be exactly right to sustain life for even a millisecond - much less a millennium. That's not to mention the simple fact that life comes from life - always. We have never observed life coming from something other than life, so it's a HUGE assumption to say that it has ever happened, much less to say it happened many, many, times. I prefer making simpler, more backup-able claims.

The probability is kind of zero, actually! 

[MasterofPun]

Are you aware of the supernatural probability that would have to take place for Evolution to take place? 
You have to believe some crazy stuff happened to believe in Evolution, in my opinion. The universe has so many things that are just right that are so freakishly improbable to ever occur. That definitely qualifies as belief.

1) This is either referring to the universal constants or for specific events.

Universal Constants is the better argument but there is no way to even estimate the probability of one of the constants being any particular value. Thus we cannot make valid claims about it being or not being improbable.

Specific Events is the weaker argument. It claims that the total probability of the specific humans of the specific human species of the specific planet earth is low without then counting the number of simultaneous independent events occurred (different species, different planets, different suns, and different galaxies). It is akin to the counting error of saying "The chance of winning the lottery is so low, therefore everyone that won the lottery did so only because some yet unexplained supernatural cause". If there is a 1% chance of a specific outcome and 1,000 events, we would expect that outcome to show up ~10 times.

2)Anthropomorphic bias
For all non 0 probabilities, if they happened, the probability that they happened is 100%.

First - why do humans have a common ancestor? That wouldn't make sense according to microevolution. As one evolved somewhere on this planet, on the other side there should have been humans for a long time, or just starting. Why are there such giant differences between us and our "ancestor" apes? DNA example: bananas are more closely related to humans than apes! Yet no one has said we came from bananas! 

I was referring to Earth's position and supreme ability to sustain life unlike any of the other celestial bodies we have observed.

[Arum]

"DNA example: bananas are more closely related to humans than apes!"

False. 50% of our genetics are shared with bananas. ~99% of our genetics are shared with apes.

[OldTrees]

Are you aware of the supernatural probability that would have to take place for Evolution to take place? 
You have to believe some crazy stuff happened to believe in Evolution, in my opinion. The universe has so many things that are just right that are so freakishly improbable to ever occur. That definitely qualifies as belief.

1) This is either referring to the universal constants or for specific events.

Universal Constants is the better argument but there is no way to even estimate the probability of one of the constants being any particular value. Thus we cannot make valid claims about it being or not being improbable.

Specific Events is the weaker argument. It claims that the total probability of the specific humans of the specific human species of the specific planet earth is low without then counting the number of simultaneous independent events occurred (different species, different planets, different suns, and different galaxies). It is akin to the counting error of saying "The chance of winning the lottery is so low, therefore everyone that won the lottery did so only because some yet unexplained supernatural cause". If there is a 1% chance of a specific outcome and 1,000 events, we would expect that outcome to show up ~10 times.

2)Anthropomorphic bias
For all non 0 probabilities, if they happened, the probability that they happened is 100%.

First - why do humans have a common ancestor? That wouldn't make sense according to microevolution. As one evolved somewhere on this planet, on the other side there should have been humans for a long time, or just starting. Why are there such giant differences between us and our "ancestor" apes? DNA example: bananas are more closely related to humans than apes! Yet no one has said we came from bananas! 

I was referring to Earth's position and supreme ability to sustain life unlike any of the other celestial bodies we have observed.

Ah since you are referring to Earth's position:
1) What it the probability of a randomly generated planet being similar enough to earth?
2) How many planets exist in the entire universe?
Since the 2nd number is many orders of magnitudes larger than the 1st ...

Someone already corrected you about bananas being 50% to ape's 99%. However I will go further and point out that biologists do claim that bananas, apes, and humans all evolved from the common ancestor that mutated the ribosomal proteins that we all share with negligible variation.

Does humanity as a whole share a common ancestor? Well I'll ask it this way, you have a population of 100 vulcans. How many generations go by before their offspring are all distantly related to one another?  Sorry that was not a serious answer.

First - why do humans have a common ancestor? That wouldn't make sense according to microevolution. As one evolved somewhere on this planet, on the other side there should have been humans for a long time, or just starting.

1) Why would you expect humans to evolve multiple times? Eyes have evolved multiple times but they are much higher probability (for multiple reasons dealing with the much fewer base pairs involved).
2) There was no "1st" human under evolution. Speciation happens at the population level rather than at the individuals level. "Common ancestor" is usually referring to those nodes when speciation happens at the population level. It is not referring to a literal individual (although go back some more generations from a node and you will have several literal common ancestors as my joke answer pointed out)

[MasterofPun]

If eyes evolved multiple times, humans should have evolved multiple times in a world with infinite possibilities.

[OldTrees]

If eyes evolved multiple times, humans should have evolved multiple times in a world with infinite possibilities.

1) The genetic code does not have literally infinite possibilities
2) If I have 1 event that happened 1 time with 1 outcome, it does not matter if there were an infinite number of possible outcomes, I will only get 1 outcome (flipping a coin once gives you heads or tails, not both heads and tails).

So obviously to meant infinite chances rather than infinite possibilities
3) There have not been infinite chances. Nowhere near it.

So obviously infinite was hyperbole
4) The Eye is much much simpler than a human and thus is both a more probable event and each chance takes fewer years.

When looking at the probabilities, one would expect the eye to evolve multiple times before humans evolved even once(which is what has been observed). Be patient, humans might evolve again before the heat death of the universe (or they might not).

[godisnowonline]

You are aware that non carbon based life was discovered only like 2 years ago on mars right? That mars has/d/ running water at one point and that carbon is not the only element capable of creating and or sustaining life. Firstly as to say that the conditions for life are astronomically specific. No, the conditions for our life and life that we are aware of is incredibly specific. We have had only our own sphere (pun intended) of influence and observation to work from. As we study the universe we see more about how much we do not know. Their is a literal edge to our understanding and vision. We can only observe that which we can see and the universe is still growing as far as we can observe. Next to the logical fallacy of infinite outcomes, life comes from something that we can't identify: Combining all the elements of the chemistry of life doesn't give you instant human even if you mix them the right way. Which of course is incredibly complex. At this point, we can identify the characteristics of carbon based life and now arsenic based life forms. Either way, life is either a very happy accident or it was created. Doesn't mean that it was a god or a theism. Life evolves and adapts. It's been and probably will continue to be long after all of us are dead.

[Fippe94]

Not really interested in discussing, just came to say this:
We have *not* discvered any life on Mars. We have found water on Mars, and there is some evidence pointing to Mars being habitable in the past, but we have absolutely not found any sign of life on Mars (yet).

[Arum]

Not really interested in discussing, just came to say this:
We have *not* discvered any life on Mars. We have found water on Mars, and there is some evidence pointing to Mars being habitable in the past, but we have absolutely not found any sign of life on Mars (yet).

I was under the impression that some fossilized microbes were found on Mars.

Turns out I'm not quite right, it is highly theorized but not actually confirmed.