Conclusions shouldn't be based on what "satisfies" us. They should be based on what is most likely true. - codedlogic
This statement doesn't make sense to me, what satisfies us is what is most likely true. There is no difference. Something we determine as most likely, is determined by the evidence that satisfies us.
But really proof of god or proof of no god is relatively less important than other things in life so it really depends on how much effort people want to put into gathering evidence to prove a point to other people about God or atheism.
Postulating that evolution was "guided" to satisfy something we don't understand isn't an explanation. It's an argument from ignorance. - codedlogic
Telling people who believe in God that they are ignorant is called intellectual intimidation and it shuts down sensible scientifc debate. It's what some atheists do to make themselves feel more intelligent for not believing in God