"a serious case could be made for a deistic god... [but not] 'a god who cares about our sins', 'what we do with our genitals', and what we think about".Richard Dawkins in debate with John Lennox, 2008. (Notes on which at CMF, Bethinking.org).
Don't get over-excited this is no conversion by the most famous of Atheists, but it suggests that Dawkins' root objections are not so much scientific but probably moral and theological. I find this to be a refreshingly honest comment from Dawkins - he's obviously still using all the same fairies at the end of the garden, flying-spaghetti monster stuff too but this hits on the reason why a Christian expects people, themselves included, to not want to believe in God.
If there's no God, we're not held accountable for the way we live ('don't worry') and can get on an live however we want to ('enjoy your life'). The Christian sympathises entirely with this but then finds themselves confronted with evidence that demands a verdict. Not first the fingerprints of God in creation, not first the morality of people, but eyewitness testimony that asks us to consider whether beyond reasonable doubt Jesus rose from the dead - if so then whether I like the idea of God being involved in my life is fairly irrelevant.
Curiously, Dawkins comment is pretty much what King Ahab says of the prophet Micaiah whom he refuses to listen to because the God of Micaiah insists on speaking Ahab's life: "There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, Micaiah the son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but always evil." - 2 Chronicles 18.