Becoming an angry atheist

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's just it, no one asserts that they just happen. They follow natural laws whose origins are uncertain and show absolutely no evidence of being the result of some greater intelligence.

Let’s further explore your statement, shall we? What I hear you saying is that there is that something explains natural laws, but we cannot know what that something is. Hold that thought.

… you’re… also creating a false dichotomy by assuming that they [causal relationships] must be the result of an intelligence or happen for no reason at all.

I didn’t just make the assumption. I also referenced the grandmaster skeptic’s (Hume’s) way of thinking. He showed that what you get when you abandon final cause is occasionalism, the absence of any rational principle for linking causes to their effects, i.e. no reason at all.

The clear alternative is that causality is directed by something, which you have already admitted above. Something capable of directing could be either intelligent or mindless. You say mindless. But, since intentional, directed, activity is associated with intelligence, it is reasonable to conclude that that which directs causality is an intelligent agent.