Why are Atheists so obsessed with Explanation from Origin?

To read the work of some self-proclaimed atheists, one would think that as soon as a god is shown to not be necessary to explain the origin of humanity, the world, the universe etc. that religion would simply cease. However this apparent mania for explanation is in most cases only true of the atheist that shares that assumption, not of the religious type they are professing to.

Dawkins' exploration of the probability of the existence of gods (ignoring his statistical inadequacy as well as the inadequacy of his definitions) is mostly irrelevant to the people he apparently wants to dissuade from their beliefs. The Greeks had religion with no pretension that it "explained" anything, the point was understanding through metaphor. Given that such things as the "gene" in Dawkins' own works are not things but metaphors, he is on shaky ground when he attacks other works that do the same in the same manner. Using probability itself in terms of belief is also unwise if one believes in the origin of the universe as an initial singularity. Currently the physics that examines that area is looking for possible reasons that the singularity might have found itself in such a singularly unlikely state (having a probability of being in that state exponentially lower than anything that does exist in order to result in the universe as observed) at the moment the expansion began.

Most religion is primarily about understanding things that are as they are, not explaining how they came to be that way. While creation stories abound and make useful fodder for answering the questions posed by inquisitive 4 year olds they aren't taken that literally or even seriously by the majority of adult believers. (and if you take people by mental age, adult as a modifier disincludes the majority of so-called fundamentalists).

That most of the inferences religions have made regarding the existence of their god are logical fallacies is easily demonstrable. Unfortunately, that many of the arguments made by atheists are also logical fallacies is just as easily demonstrable. Dawkins attack on religion, for example, doesn't simply contain logical fallacies, its core is only tenable if one ignores three of the fundamental logical fallacies, the most cogent of which is the travesty his book makes of the fallacy of association. Were I to read the God Delusion with no knowledge of the book or its author outside its pages I would make the assumption that its author was just another ignorant crank and as such unlikely to be listened to by those sympathetic to either side. That it was written by a supposedly intelligent man verges on shameful.