Firstly I would point out that not all atheists support the idea of evolution much less abiogenesis. I can’t follow their logic but I’m just reminding you that atheists have only one issue, they reject the theist claim that any gods exist. Got that? The don’t accept the claim. Gods might exist, but you have given them nothing to work with and claims that abiogenesis is nonsense is a typically unsupported theist claim that can annoy those Christians that accept Evolutionary Theory as a fact and that abiogenesis might well be the only valid explanation for life which does not necessarily invalidate their faith.
Anyway back to your OP:
Why would any rational person believe life came from non-life through magic?
Yes, there are theories, which are eminently more logical than notions of mythical superstition which makes no rational sense at all and which is considered the very anti-thesis of science.
Your comment that current theories on abiogenesis aren’t scientific only reveals a lack of knowledge on the subject and an unwarranted bias.
The origin of life is considered a majestic and massively complex subject and its not a surprise that in the natural course of mankind’s desire to explain everything, the origin of life has been long relegated to the realm of faith in a creator god, which explains a lot less than modern research.
We know only one thing for sure. Life started. We have several areas for speculation. One involves a creator deity, a divine spontaneous inexplicable act that created life from clay, mud, dust, whatever, in a manner that suspends all the rules of nature.
Another view is that through the natural processes of physics and chemistry, on inert chemicals and compounds in turbulent and sometimes toxic environments we no longer experience on earth, over several billion years, an ever increasing preponderance of bio-chemicals and bio-compounds displaying independent and reactive properties for change, variation and development, at some point developed an amazing but highly evident ability to replicate. And it only had to happen once in the early part of our earth’s history. The replication through variation and circumstance could have provided all the change and mutations required for the emergence of a single celled organism completely interactive with its environment and with self reproductive abilities (the sex came much later).
You can condemn the scientific research as mere speculation but it is speculation built on a solid edifice of evidenced knowledge, understanding and reason. There is a substantial basis for accepting the possibility of abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon, everything required was already naturally available, no special creation required.
It is now a subject that borrows heavily from other scientific fields like astronomy, geology, palaeontology, micro-biology, physiological metabolism and so on…
The findings so far in abiogenesis is not a product of unquestioning faith, which in itself is not a path to truth, but those findings are due to a methodology that has been proven to produce consistent and repeatable evidences that have persistently shown how reality and nature works and how it can be utilised and moderated.
I leave you some references if you care read up on more about abiogenetic research. Its all very scientific.
Science Daily - see the article, half way down the page “Building Blocks of Life Can Form Long Before Stars” - fascinating.
Nature Magazine - scientific reports
I don’t expect you would actually read this. It makes my brain bleed, but its just one paper out of millions presented every year, subjected to strict critical peer review, that just shows how detailed and precise research into the possibility of abiogenesis really is. Its not just a nonsense subject unless you are enmired in superstition.
Then there is Wikipedia, which is an easier read. I recommend it if you genuinely are interested in abiogenesis as something more than just a weapon to needlessly use against atheists.