Why is that concept so difficult? Jesus is the son of God. Atheists do not believe that God exists. That which does not exist cannot have offspring. Simple.
I guess this relationship with Jesus is a hell of a long-distance relationship. Really weird one too. Never met in person, and you never get to see him. Can't even just chat with him over coffee.
From what I understand, an atheist believes there is no God and our existence is merely a coincidence that happened at some point a long time ago, is this correct?
Correct. As Carl Sagan said, "we are star stuff." Supernovas and other such phenomena are largely responsible for producing the very heavy elements, while lighter ones, such as helium or oxygen, can be produced in the center of main-sequence stars.
Second, to clear something else up, it's not entirely random either, in the sense that most people envision when they say "random." That old analogy for life arising out of nonliving components, that it's like a tornado making a 747 - that's pure BS. That is going from chaos to order in an instant. Going from nonlife to life, at least on this planet, took billions of years. The Big Bang was about 14 billion years ago. Life, in simple bacterial form, first showed up sometime around 2-3 billion years ago. Hardly just *blink* and there it was. It was a long time after that until complex multicelluar organisms became common.
It's all very slow progression. What guides it? Good old natural selection - that which survives can reproduce. That which has mutations which happen to improve chances of survival can reproduce more. Nature doesn't create masterful, perfect, orderly things. It does what works. It doesn't need to work "well," it just needs to work "well enough."
Humans have numerous "features" which, from an engineering standpoint, are stupid. Odd feet, which have remnants of an opposable thumb (our big toes), which are prone to pain from extended use. A spinal column that just doesn't
quite seem entirely up to the challenge of supporting gravity compressing it all the time, versus ancestors which would have had their spine positioned horizontally, from walking on all fours. Some organs have backups, some don't. Lungs? One duplicate, but the two are connected. If one is breached, you're screwed. Kidneys? You can live with one working, but it takes several hours or perhaps days to die if they'd both fail. Heart? Very mission-critical, you'd think it'd have some kind of backup. Nope. Let's see, other problems...well, anything that goes wrong with aging. Simply put, these bodies weren't built to last. They were "built" for one purpose, ultimately - survive long enough to reproduce. Once the genes are passed on and the kids have a decent chance of surviving, that's all you really were supposed to do, from an evolutionary standpoint. Long life never served any purpose in our development, or at least not useful enough to warrant the passing of genes to promote longevity.
My point in all that is, if we were designed, it's a pretty damn lousy job. Rube-Goldberg Device is what comes to mind. It's a totally screwy design, but hey, it works well enough to reproduce, so go with it!
Also, do you feel it is logical to think that once our body dies, we cease to exist forever?
Yes, perfectly. The collection of thoughts that is "me" has only existed since my brain first came online, so to speak, at some point in the womb. It was only a basic bit of programming then, sort of a BIOS, but ready to learn, and produce a personality. The persona that is "me" will cease to exist when I die. That's simple logic right there - "me" is harbored in the many neurons in my brain. When my body is dead, the brain will follow suit. If it can't process any incoming information, nor produce any kind of thoughts in response, well, consciousness has ceased, and it will not restart, especially after decay sets in. [Star]dust to dust.