Because atheism renders the mysteries concerning our existence irrelevant, without adding anything new to the equation. That it is less interesting can be derived mathematically.
*** This of course is conflict of opinion. That amoeba and humans, the Amazon and Everest can exist on the same planet through natural processes is a real beauty to me. I am more than happy for you to find such beauty through any belief you choose. However I would maintain that from my view, there is no 'evidence' to suggest a 'creator' got us here, or anything in the universe, other than the gaps in our existing knowledge.***
No, there's no difference of opinion here (at least not as you're referencing). As I already stated, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. It's possible to recognize that natural processes led to the existence of amoeba and humans, the Amazon and Everest on the same planet through natural processes just as an atheist can. How such a thing happened is firmly in the realm of science. Why it happened, science cannot address. With an intelligent creator in the mix we can speculate on and at least attempt to reason out his motives for designing the world in the manner he did (while still being just as fascinated by the question of how it happened). Take the intelligent creator away, and we're left without the question even mattering. You seem to be equating science with atheism and obviously that is not an accurate thing to do.
The question of why we are here implies the existence of a creator. If there is no creator there is no why, so atheists who engage in such exercises do so without understanding their own position.
***I understand and I myself, never need to ask 'why' (in terms of our existence) but I would add that to think I 'know everything' would be a total lie. I was trying to say that stating atheists 'dismiss' the 'why' makes it sound like we're puddle-dodging part of the argument...when we just have no need to encounter it as you know and point out 
(Thank you!) ***
Please understand that I'm not saying that a religious viewpoint is more "right" than an atheist one, just that it's more interesting. You're right, if you don't believe in God you don't *have* to ask the question; but in taking away the question, your belief is just duller than the alternatives.
^^ proving the above point. This is the central issue; science addresses the "how"; it is unequipped to address the "why". Even if we knew everything about how we came into existence that it would be possible to know, it would do nothing to address why we are here. It's an interesting question, and atheism renders it meaningless.
*** I feel this almost counters your previous statement which I essentially agreed with. We [atheists] don't ask "why" because we don't need to. "Believers" need to ask why because they are either unsatisfied with the 'natural' process not requiring god, or they believe they are going somewhere once they kick the bucket. ***
This is, again, very much in line with the point I'm making: that theism is inherently more interesting than atheism, because theism forces the question while atheism simply ignores it.
***The quote was another snippet of Hitchens that I think he 'borrowed' from someone previously.
I would be interested in the evidence you refer to. One thing I would agree with, is that creator or not, the debate certainly makes everything more interesting ***
Essentially, my reason for being a deist is the fact that conditions in the universe were just right for intelligent life, able to observe, wonder, reason and record the world around us, to not only emerge, but apparently (according to most experts on the matter) to flourish. People talk about the so-called "Goldilocks Zone" and the fact that the Earth is just the right distance from the sun (and I believe other factors, such as the possibility of water springing up) for life to develop. The simple matter is that the entire universe can be seen as such a zone, and that if one of several factors in the universe's early development had been only slightly different, life, much less intelligent, sentient life, would not even be possible. This strongly suggests design to me.
*** My apologies, the research and Hitchens video were just for interest and I thought they may help add to the discussion; they were not 'meant' to directly respond to any parts of your comment, I would like to have the confidence in myself to do that ***
Oh, no need to apologize. As I said, I enjoyed the video.
Roundy, I think I understand your point of view more clearly now: matters like the 'Goldilocks zone', the development of life on Earth, the presence and abundance of both water and land in essentially perfect measures for us to 'flourish' (for you) point towards the involvement of a 'creator'. (If I am wrong, correct me as I know you will do
)
However, that same 'creator' also appears to have 'given' us a Sun that will one day die, as well as putting us in a galaxy that appears to be rushing headlong into a collision with another galaxy that will end everything we know of Earth and its position in the universe.
(For those interested) Galaxy Collision:
http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/cosmic_collision/The death of our Sun:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=258740I can only make observations or personal statements based upon what I see before me, what I read, what I hear (etc) - and as long as they are from reliable sources, or peer-reviewed, or backed up with layers of 'working' method or practice that indicates one could use them to support a particular outlook or belief in this universe.
At present, I see that we appear to be in an incomprehensibly old, incomprehensibly big universe with what looks like an incomprehensibly unpredictable future ahead of it. If I am a human, here now asking 'why', I would immediately begin to wonder 'why' would a mind able to contemplate its own existence be placed (or allowed to 'flourish') in such a ridiculously confusing place of multi-dimensions, space, time, etc, if there were an answer to be sought? In addition, of our billions of brothers and sisters on this planet, many of them will be born and die either
without asking a similar question themselves, or they will simply
not even get the chance to ask it. This (for me, at least) does not point towards our universe bearing the mucky fingerprints of any 'intelligent designer' or 'creator'.
Nevertheless, it is of course only sensible for me to absolutely confirm that there is a
possibility that 'all of this' could be the inner clockworkings of the favourite toy of a 'creator'. However, even if I were to change my opinion from that of atheism to that of theism, in order for me (or anyone) to say "I can have a guess at what all this is all for", would require knowledge or understanding of a 'creator' itself - it presumes that the answer to 'why' is found in the region of "because we were put here by something else" or "the universe was started by something else because it wanted to see what would happen".
We both agree atheism has no need to ask 'why'; but based on what we know at present, theism must surely be the presumption that there
must be a 'why' and that the 'why' stems from a 'godly' first cause.
If I were to also concede that: "Yes, there are things that we will never have an explanation for 'why' they started or came into being" there is still a whole lot more work to be done to point that an answer must lie with a 'creator', an 'intelligent designer' or anything else.
This could be the first time that 'life' as we know it has got this far in a cycle of the universe exploding and then re-forming. Then again this could be the 'first' universe that has ever existed. We could be on a flat earth on the back of a turtle. We could be my, or your imagination. We could be in "Sims 2012" as part of a video game that is actually being played in 3582AD.
Furthermore, (with my atheist-hat back on) If you ask 'why', how will you know once the 'answer' is 'revealed' to you, or what kind of 'answer' would you expect to be 'revealed'?