It’s whys all the way down. That’s the Pratchett approach. 
Yes, I concur, we’re in unison about the fact that many (or most?) people are religious because they search for answers for this question. The moment you let go of it and accept that it’s a nonsensical question, this need for searching goes away.
‘Because that’s the way God did it!’ shouldn’t be any more satisfying to those people than ‘We don’t know… but we’re working on it!’ is.
Moreover, ‘Because that’s the way God did it!’ still isn’t an answer to the ‘Why?’ question.
Add into that the little problem that the folks that accept the ‘God done did it!’ answer don’t agree on the ‘god’ part of the answer. It all becomes a John Godfrey Saxe’s The Blind Men and the Elephant, A Hindoo Fable type situation.
MORAL.
So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
This would be better as a separate thread, but I’ll briefly go off-topic to say that defining infinity is not an issue: A set is infinite if it isn’t finite, and a set is finite if it can be put in one-to-one correspondence with a set of the form \{1, 2, \ldots, n\} for some integer n. The controversy is whether you agree that infinite sets actually exist as such, but most mathematicians assume and believe they do (in the sense that any mathematical objects exist).
And we can be important to others also. Some of that makes us feel good directly (like an anonymous donation) but some might result in feedback from the other person that makes us feel good.
A big difference between atheists and theists is that many atheists are comfortable with no why. More than comfortable. If there is a disaster, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, asking why results in nothing but sorrow. Isn’t it much better to realize that they were the chance victims of blind natural forces? And that we can and should do things to mitigate future disasters, like early warning systems for tsunamis? If you think such things are the desire of some deity you’d be against mitigating them, the way some churchmen were against lightning rods.
I’ve done experiments where I tested some clever selection method against random selection. In one case random selection won, so I tossed the method. We can test random causes for things versus purpose. I have a hard time not concluding randomness fits reality much better than purpose.
Sure, religion can give people answers to questions… but so can I.
What happens after we die? We are reincarnated as ants.
What is our purpose in life? To replace the ants we kill.
Is there life on other planets? Yes, and when they die they are reincarnated as ants on Earth, which explains why there are more ants on Earth than can be explained by the deaths of humans here.
After this last winter, I want to join your church.
An atheist can just as easily say, whatever dude, we’re all just specks, heat death in a billion years, fuck those people, lower my taxes and I’ll be poolside. There’s nothing particular about atheism that leads one to better choices for humankind.
It’s one possible interpretation of “why.”
I can think of at least three different senses that one can interpret the question “Why do people believe in God?”:
On top of that, we could be asking “Why do people in general believe in God?” or “Why does that specific individual believe in God?”
None of which is the same as asking what the thread title asks: “Why do so many people still believe in God?”
Exactly. Another “why” question can always be asked.
I think conflating “nonsensical” with “non-scientific” avoids the problem by ignoring it. There’s no scientific experiment that shows that the scientific method is the only valid approach to answering questions.
Why are people more satisfied by it? 
But seriously, science doesn’t do well with what we should do.
Why does randomness fit reality? 
I agree with your post. Some people ask “why” more than others. Some (likely variable) amount of “why” questions is adaptive, while too few or too many is not.
Exactly. Each of us will have non-scientific answers.
All non-scientific answers are equally valid.
Because, to twist the Feynman quote, ‘I would rather have answers that can’t be questioned than questions that can’t be answered.’
Right, as far as I understand Gödel’s incompleteness showed us why science cannot explain itself. But see, science itself gave us this insight, and that’s why it’s the best tool we have.
Oh, that was a rather flippant answer to @Czarcasm because of all the ant invasions we’ve been having in the last few months. I really REALLY don’t want to join any more churches.
Exactly! The scientific method is by far the best tool we have. It’s just not our only tool.
Topical xkcd comic (replace “standard” with “religion”):
I think this thread has gone on a bit about the mystery of why life exists. I think that will always be a mystery, how life ever came to be instead of nothing. Even if a defined god was found, there would still be the question of how that god came to be. So the questions would not stop.
I have enjoyed my life, more than not. It has been worth it. So the fact that I have lived is a huge positive that need never have happened for any of us. Yet it did. Furthermore, I love fellow people and creatures and creations that others have made to this life. Not all of it, but more positives than negatives.
I want to externalize that awe, wonder, and love from the individual people in this world. I love many people. I don’t worship them. There are bad people. Sometimes bad people work together and do awful things. I could quite possibly be killed by such bad people, and in certain times of history that definitely happens. I would rather retain my awe and thankfulness of what has already happen than be entirely of this world should such a holocaust occur again. And even otherwise, I will still age and die and would like to enjoy my remaining years in as good spirits and as good a frame of mind as possible.
I want a religion/philosophy that maintains that awe and wonder long past the individual people of a certain time. As far as atheism was concerned, I just never saw any reason to go down that road, didn’t see the benefits of it. It was a choice between the atheism product and the religious product, and I chose religion. I am comfortable with doubt.
I can feel the same awe from a materialistic POV. I feel awe in the face of the universe, its scientific properties and quirks, witnessing my fellow humans do good deeds to each other and enjoying both nature and works of art. I can easily share this awe with my descendants and thus maintain it, without any religious overtones needed. The universe and life are random, but they are (mostly) quite awesome, and I may be an existentialist, but I’m not a cynic (well, at least not all of the time 
). I don’t see why there is a need to base that awe on religion and/or gods.
Didn’t say there was. My observation is that more theists claim that atheists don’t give a crap than there are atheists who don’t give a crap. I get plenty of reason from real people. I personally get some from having grandchildren, but it is not like those who are past reprductive age without having children just give up.
Theists and atheists both can support good choices for humankind. But atheism by itself doesn’t lead to bad choices, while theism can. I think the examples of god-based evil policies are all around us today - and throughout history.
We spent several weeks in college going through Gödel’s proof in detail (including Gödel numbers) and it does not. I don’t think I understand what science explaining itself even means, to be honest. Hell, Turing’s Halting Problem doesn’t mean that computer science can’t explain itself. Whatever that means.
Sounds like that old “What stops you from stealing and killing if you don’t believe in God?” argument.
I hear it all the time from theists ‘If I didn’t believe I’d be a nihilist because atheism is nihilism’ . . . what they never realize is that that says everything about them and nothing about atheists.