why is scripture often not considered at least probabilistic proof by atheists?

I discard it because I know that scripture is based on ancient myths, songs, poems, narratives, and oral tradition. We know where the myths originate and in some cases, we know who wrote or redacted the myths. Anyone who is agnostic about God is intellectually dishonest. There is more than ample evidence to draw the conclusion that God is a mythical character. There is no rational defense for being agnostic.

I predict that somewhere in the world, in the next 10 years, a car at a busy city intersection will hit a young woman. I can also tell you that on December 12th and 13th this year, there will be meteor showers visible in North America, but will be somewhat difficult to see because the moon will be visible most the night. Those two statements will come true.

I could claim the two statements were divinely received, and if you were intellectually weak, you may just believe it. However, the fact is even those both those statements will be proven true, neither one was divinely received. It is up to you to understand why those two statements will be true and not be gullible enough to believe that I was somehow divinely inspired.

Your book, as well as my predictions, should be discarded because neither one of them contain true predictions, even though I know my statements will turn out to be true. It is up to you to find out why, and not just blindly believe.

Because it's not probable, or even possible. That's why.

LOL, if a person makes thousands of predictions, a mixture of the impossible, and the vague, and of things that are always going on, then OF COURSE some of them will "come true" -- what of it?

BTW, it's called "The Jean Dixon Fallacy" -- she used to make lots of predictions. At years' end, they'd report on those that had come true, and pretend it meant she was really psychic. (This was decades ago, so most people probably have never heard of her.)

It's not AT ALL improbable or lucky that "and there were wars .. and earthquakes" came true. There have always been wars somewhere; there are frequently earthquakes. If you also predict "bad stuff will happen" you're guaranteed to be correct.

I see you can't give even ONE example. LOL

No, no SANE person finds reason to take scripture seriously as science, history, or fact.

Because they are biased against it. I think that this is a double sided fault. Many Protestants try to use Scripture to prove Scripture true, which I find very circular, since atheists do not accept the Divine authority of Scriptures so they obviously are not going to care about a circular argument. On the fault of the atheists, they don't give the Bible enough historical consideration. While doctrinally and religiously it may not mean nothing to a non-Christian, its history should at least be taken into consideration.

You mean the same bible that says plants existed before the sun? Are you saying the Bible doesn't say that (when it clearly does) or are you so deluded you think that plants really did exist before the sun?

Also, please list ONE example of a scientific discovery made by the Bible before actual science did. Or is it more like a scientific discovery was made and THEN you guys just go in and try to interpret the book so that it fits that scientific discovery? That's called a post hoc rationalization.

EDIT: It really doesn't matter which scripture you're talking about. ALL religious texts have factual errors in them. HOw about you mention the scripture you're referring to so that I can specifically point out the factual errors? Too scared?

For the same reason that the Harry Potter books are not regarded as "probabilistic proof" that people can cast spells & fly on broomsticks. Despite the books containing references to real honest-to-goodness geographical locations like London & King's Cross Station.

Yes, now imagine someone writes:

1) thousands of

2) generally vague and/or

3) easily predictable things

Then you can absolutely guarantee that million of gullible people will look at events after those writings and see some supposed correlation between them and conclude that they could predict the future in some supernatural way.

It's a tried and tested technique.

What are some of the Biblical statements that were not generally accepted knowledge at the time, but have been shown accurate only eons later. Generalizations are easy, but do you have specifics?

And why are there so many demonstrably false scientific descriptions in the Bible?

There are many books that claim all sorts of things, the only test is against reality. Some books claim that they get then information from 'divine' sources, when examined none bar none ever prove to be accurate.

Because option B assumes that divinity is a thing. That there's something out there that gives inspiration to humans. There isn't. And if there is, we've found no proof of it, nor can you provide said proof for it.

Because scripture does not contain scientific discoveries beyond what people of that era had. In fact, all the scriptures I know are completely geocentric.

If you want to see scripture that contains the most scientific predictions that later became reality, try the books of Jules Verne. That man was way ahead of his time!