Quite to the contrary, I fervently want to believe in God but since there is no evidence whatsoever of his existence and much to suggest otherwise, I don't. Sorry that I don't conform to your silly stereotype.
My statement was conditional, and included both alternatives. If I were making a definitive statement I would've began: In fact, I personally think that since abiogenesis is the ultimate origin of life on earth...
Well, it would actually since the modern thesis demands a common ancestor.
Well, no, it really, actually wouldn't. The "modern thesis" is not a religious dogma fantasized irrationally out of the ether. It is a compiled scientific paradigm established by the overwhelming evidence of common descent. The reason that the "modern thesis" is the modern thesis is simply because every form of life we've discovered clearly evidences a descent common with every other known form of life. If we uncovered some terrestrial life form that evidenced an origin apart from this common lineage, it would not even remotely undermine the scientific evidence of common descent for every other known form of life.
The modern thesis "demands" nothing aside that it account for all the scientific evidence. If the evidence changes, the thesis will change accordingly. Religion has its own separate rules so try not to confuse the two.
What evidence would it take for you to believe in God?
Evidence of his existence, as opposed to conjecture about the unexplained.
There is far more evidence of God than of accident.
Perhaps we should be careful not to conflate God with what men say about God.