To answer directly why the resurrection is not spoken of modernly as much as the atoning death, it might be because for 364 days of the year Western men are supposedly rational, reasoning, semi-scientifically thinking men. On Easter, they are asked to put that aside and to believe in the resurrection. It might seem weird and is definitely neither rational or scientific.
Jesus’ agony on the cross and the politics immediately before that are understandable in comparison.
We don't know how to talk about things that blow our minds. So we're comfortable discussing death by torture and attaching meaning to it. But resurrection in a recognizable but new sort of body, that just leaves us agog. The thing itself just doesn't “fit”.
The average liberal theologian tries to appropriate the meaning without the fact ... and leaves himself open to Paul's dictum that in that case our hope is in vain.
When I achieve my plan to become both pope and emperor of the world (any day now — watch this space), the funeral of anyone who dies of natural causes over the age of 65 will have a mandatory reading from 1 Cor 15.
I understand that BUT one has to believe in something. How did this huge universe get here? That takes a huge amount of faith to believe it is an accident. The resurrection is not the only miracle that is difficult to believe. What about the virgin birth and the ascension? It all takes faith but look at the Bible as a history book (which it is) then visit Israel and read about archaeological finds, etc. that reinforces the accuracy of the Bible. I believe.