I gather from most of the angry responses with few exceptions (Stryder for example), it's not nice to single out a group of people and ask them of their beliefs.
Actually, you didn't ask people about
their beliefs. You presented
your belief of how atheists view themselves - as having no purpose, no place no value - then asked questions based on
your belief.
In the process, you made it abundantly clear, through phrases such as:
masturbatory futility
intentionally placed ignorances?
giving another shmo with no purpose an equal chance to share meaninglessness
are you an animal?
If you bite me...can I put you to sleep?
delusions they use to convince themselves
... that your idea of how atheists see themselves is far from being a "logical deduction" but rather a figment of your imagination born of contempt, with your "evidence" being no more than personal interpretation in light of that contempt.
The end result is an opening post that's insult disguised as inquiry, with no real value or purpose beyond whatever gratification it gives you to vent your contempt, and flame.
You're then surprised, in all innocence, at the "angry responses." Your contempt is so obvious there's no need to play innocent - you were undoubtedly aware it would
read as contemptuously as it was written.
The good news is, we do have your promise:
Thanks kernl sanders, I'll learn to be more tolerant like you. I'll try to tolerate people who have different opinions than myself, and not say hateful things about their organizational structures. I'll also try not to make assumptions about things I am not actively involved with.