I have through observation and discussion discovered that the removal of even the mere notion of a higher being is considered attractive to "some" people because they can live with a free albeit numbed or diminished conscience in this area at least.
I would have to say this is probably a load of crap. I find atheists no more or less moral than anyone else.
Care to provide some examples of these people? I can provide you thousands of christians with a "numbed or diminished conscience".
Or do you define everyone that does not believe what you believe as "numbed and diminished".
Your whole premise is offensive.
What is my motivation for denying a god and accepting evolution?
First of all they are not mutually exclusive things. You can believe in a god and accept evolution. You can also not believe in a god and not believe in evolution. Not believing in evolution is pretty stupid for anyone. There is that sticky thing called evidence.
I don't deny a god. That would mean that I am refusing to accept something. There is nothing to accept so there is no denial. It is simply following where the evidence leads. There is no evidence for a god or bigfoot so there is no reason to believe in them.
So why do I accept evolution? Because of the evidence. It is that simple. It is not a moral judgement.
I do not need a god to make moral decisions or to live a moral life. In fact I can live a moral life much easier because I have no reason to believe in a god.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.