I feel that the non-acceptance of atheism is primarily human laziness to confront uncertainty, ambiguity, &c. So it becomes a miracle when a person survives a disaster and other victims received no miracle. It is nice and tidy, requiring no bothersome exploration of 'Why?'. You concentrate on the wonderment of the 'miracle' to deny the hideous unfairness of life. Atheists contemplate this inexplicable happening but religionists let themselves off the hook saying it's god's will or some other trite expression.

Someone once said the sign of neurosis is an otherwise smart person behaving stupidly. It is both parallel and cogent to religious inanities.

I take what might be less critical view of the situation. I think many people prefer religion to atheism because they prefer having answers to being comfortable with not always knowing. Atheists have to accept the fact that sometimes things just happen -- babies die; jerks win the lottery -- for no purpose. Some people just can't do that.

For this reason, I disagree when you say religious people don't need a "Why". They already have one.

I also would not equate religion with neurosis as you do. It seems unnecessarily inflammatory.