Speaking as an atheist (a fairly hardcore one), when I hear this sort of thing, I feel some sympathy. I believe that "purpose" can be individual, and I don't believe that a belief in God is required to have purpose in one's life, but I sympathize at least with the desire for a sense of purpose.

If that were all that theism represented, frankly, I don't think that theists and atheists would have much contention between them. But theism, and whatever sense of purpose it provides, is usually associated with some type of dogma... and very often with political ends, as well. If theists were people who felt purposeful, but did not pronounce homosexuality immoral by divine authority, for instance, or legislate against the same, then perhaps atheists would still disagree on some level with the underlying belief in God, but I doubt that anyone would care much about the resulting difference.

Beyond that, I wonder, if the purpose that a belief in God provides is beyond "just keeping our species alive," then what precisely is that divinely ordained purpose? Singing hosannas?

You mean subjective evidence which cannot be evaluated and for non believers and believers in other deities it's the same as no evidence at all.

Have you read the Bible?  The Jews were more interested in executing Jesus than the Romans.  Jesus committed sins which were punishable by death according to Jewish law such as doing work on the Sabbath.  

Aha, you mean Lucifer.

The guy's just as fake and imaginary as God. Though his portrayal in horror movies and video games is entertaining.

I thought you're all about tolerance? Oh right, you mean you're only tolerant of people that believe the same things you do.

OP was talking about gods only son. Well thats not true. He had more than one son according to the story.

Tolerance has its limits. I also don't want people who think the earth is flat to reproduce. 

I see. So anyone that believes something not backed by science should not be allowed to reproduce. Which means nobody should because everyone believes SOMETHING not backed by facts. I wonder how you'd like to enforce this? 

I see. So anyone that believes something not backed by science should not be allowed to reproduce. Which means nobody should because everyone believes SOMETHING not backed by facts. I wonder how you'd like to enforce this? 

it makes perfect sense that non-religions people would show skepticism regarding miracles

many Christian prophecies came true with insane accuracy, which serves another kind of ''evidence'

some simple examples, prophesies from Saint Cosmas of Aetolia, around 1750:

''You will see in the plain a carriage without horses which will run faster than a rabbit.'' - referring to cars

''The time will come when people will speak from one far place to another, for example, from Constantinople to Russia, as though they were in adjoining rooms.'' - referring to phones and the internet

"The cause of the general war will come from Dalmatia. First will split Austria and then the Turkey." - From there found occasion the 2 previous World Wars. Because both Archduke Franz Ferdinand, whose murder (28 June 1914) has prompted the First World War and Hitler who started the Second one, were Austrians.  The Austro-Hungary was dissolved back in 1918, and its occupied in the past land of Yugoslavia partitioned after 1990.

what's much more interesting is his prophesy regarding World War 3, and how it is already starting to become real

I know!