Although this is an old thread, I think it apposite to contribute here ...

I am a follower of Jesus. If you'd like to know more of my reason and interest for being on this site feel free to read my profile.

I may indulge after my post.

So let me start off by saying, I respect all of your views and reasons for being Athiest [sic]. I am not here to convince anyone to believe in anything that they don't want to. I'm not here to hurt feelings or judge. I am here because I like a damn good discussion on the philosophical aspects of why we are all here on this earth as human beings! That's some good shit to talk about!

At this point, I have to tell you something important. Namely, that philosophy, when done properly, is not about finding answers to questions, but rather, determining which questions are proper to ask.

Unfortunately, philosophy has been, in some quarters, hijacked by the assertionist brigade. Nietzsche had his own insight into this matter in Beyond Good & Evil. My own copy thereof being the Penguin Classics Edition, ISBN 0 14 044513 7. The following quote is from page 36 thereof:

What makes one regard philosophers half mistrustfully and half mockingly is not that one again and again detects how innocent they are - how often and how easily they fall into error and go astray, in short their childishness and childlikeness - but that they display altogether insufficient honesty, while making a mighty and virtuous noise as soon as the problem of truthfulness is even remotely touched on. They pose as having discovered and attained their real opinions through the self-evolution of a cold, pure, divinely unperturbed dialectic (in contrast to the mystics of every rank, who are more honest and more stupid than they - these speak of 'inspiration'): while what happens at bottom is that a prejudice, a notion, an 'inspiration', generally a desire of the heart sifted and made abstract, is defended by them with reasons sought after the event - they are one and all advocates who do not want to be regarded as such, and for the most part no better than cunning pleaders for their prejudices, which they baptise 'truths' - and very far from possessing the courage of the conscience which admits this fact to itself, very far from possessing the good taste of the courage which publishes this fact, whether to warn a foe or a friend or out of high spirits and in order to mock itself. The tartuffery, as stiff as it is virtuous, of old Kant as he lures us along the dialectical bypaths which lead, more correctly, mislead, to his 'categorical imperative' - this spectacle makes us smile, we who are fastidious and find no little amusement in observing the subtle tricks of old moralists and moral-preachers. Not to speak of that hocus-pocus of mathematical form in which, as if of iron, Spinoza encased and masked his philosophy - 'the love of his wisdom', to render that word fairly and squarely - so as to strike terror into the heart of any assailant who should dare to glance at this invincible maiden and Pallas Athene - how much personal timidity and vulnerability this masquerade of a sick recluse betrays!

The condensed version of the above, is that Nietzsche castigates those 'philosophers' who erect a metaphysic, in pursuit of the agenda of trying to impose an ethic on the universe and its contents, regardless of whether such imposition is actually warranted. Though the proper generalisation of the above, consists of castigating those 'philosophers' who erect assertions, with the intent of having those assertions regarded as "axioms" about the world, regardless of whether or not those assertions actually deserve to be treated thus. It is this latter category of person that I refer to as "assertionist" above: those individuals who are in the business of pretending that their fabrications dictate how reality behaves, regardless of how much reality disagrees with this. This is a dangerous path that anyone interested in genuine philosophical inquiry should avoid at all costs. Having seen the manner in which certain mischief makers (I'm thinking here of the neo-Thomist brigade led by Edward Feser) seek to warp philosophy into apologetics via such devices, I regard any such moves with the suspicion they manifestly deserve, and so should you.

Respect for your opinion, respect for mine as well.

Except, of course, that opinion is discardable with the same ease with which it is disseminated. Treating opinion as possessing equal discoursive weight to evidentially supported postulates, is another fallacy you should avoid studiously.

So, I would like to know what you guys think about people like myself who believe in Jesus Christ.

I regard adherence to any mythology as an exercise in exquisitely crafted absurdity. Because one of the features that mythologies have in common, is that they present blind assertions as if those assertions constituted fact. An important lesson for you, and indeed for every human being on the planet to learn, is that assertions, when first presented, posses the status "truth value unknown". Do not commit the elementary error of thinking that I regard assertions as not possessing a truth-value: every assertion is, at bottom, a proposition, and possesses a truth-value on that basis, but it does not possess a known truth-value at the beginning. In the interests of rigour, it is important to make that distinction explicit. What converts an assertion into a proposition with a known truth-value, is test of that assertion. Until such test is devised and performed, the epistemological deficit I have just described remains in place. The technical complexities of determining proper tests for different categories of assertion, I leave for another time, save to mention briefly two important classes thereof: [1] assertions resolvable by recourse to observational data (see: empirical sciences), and [2] assertions resolvable via proof procedures within formal axiomatic systems (see: pure mathematics).

Indeed, one problem endemic to mythological assertions, is that they purport to be postulates about the observable universe and its contents, but frequently fail to possess the necessary connections required to convert that posture into something other than a facade.

Having devoted much of this post to ideas, it is time to devote some of this post to persons, and to remind anyone unaware of the relevant concept, of the distinction between persons and ideas. Ideas are discardable entities, whilst persons most assuredly are not. This does not mean that persons whose ideas are in error are to be allowed to protect those errors from scrutiny. You can infer robustly from all of the foregoing, that I regard adherence to mythology as one of those errors deserving of ruthless scrutiny.

I would like to know why some Athiests [sic] seem to hate followers of Jesus. (Not saying everyone feels this way).

At this point, some more elementary concepts need to be presented.

What is actually regarded with contempt by many here, myself included, is not the persons themselves, unless those persons present evidence of being malicious by intent. Much more frequently, what is regarded with well-deserved contempt, is the malign influence that arises from two sources: [1] the insistence on the part of some adherents of mythology, that the rest of us should be coerced into the same adherence, and [2] the insistence, frequently arising from that expounded in [1], that policy decisions should be coerced into conformity with mythological assertions. Both of these invariably exert malign influence whenever they are allowed to run riot.

Indeed, that is an important historical lesson from Europe, that is applicable here, with respect to the maintenance of a secular society. All too frequently, supernaturalists commit a fundamental error, when railing against secularism. They treat secularism, wholly incorrectly, as some sort of "discrimination" against them, when instead it merely consists of preventing supernaturalists from discriminating against those outside the doctrinal pale. It's not as if European history lacks disturbing lessons to be learned, with respect to the willingness of supernaturalists to exhibit homicidally repressive tendencies in the absence of constraint, and, all too often, said homicidal repression was wrought by rival groups of supernaturalists against each other. As a corollary, supernaturalists are, seemingly paradoxically from a superficial view, the beneficiaries of secularism, because at bottom, secularism consists of two foundational principles:

[1] You are free to adhere to whichever mythology you wish, if such is your choice;

[2] You are not free to coerce others into the same adherence.

Of course, supernaturalists possessing the sense of entitlement that leads to them thinking that said coercion is some sort of "right" that they should be able to exert without restriction, tend to be the most vocal proponents of that fundamental error, forgetting of course that any failure to constrain such tendencies could backfire badly upon them, should a rival group achieve hegemony instead of themselves. But I note the manner in which supernaturalists frequently delude themselves that this will never happen, until it is too late, and they are the ones being thrown into dungeons by sectarian adversaries. It is these maleficent tendencies I have just documented, that attract the ire of myself and others here.

And also, why some Atheists mock, make fun of, and ridicule my beliefs?

Quite simply, another important elementary concept needs to be presented here, all the better to illuminate your understanding.

Mockery, which in its highest form attains the status of satire, has been a tool of choice for spotlighting absurdity since the advent of civilisation itself. Some of the most ruthless and exquisitely skilled practitioners of the art, were to be found in Classical Greek civilisation, the writers of Old Comedy such as Aristophanes being among the most stellar wielders of the requisite literary weapons. When performed with due finesse, mockery punctures pretensions, pricks pomposity and bulldozes bombast, in a manner that is not only highly entertaining, but educational. It has also been a suitably effective weapon for the highlighting of much more sinister failings, such as those arising from tyranny.

Next, another important concept needs to be highlighted. Namely, beliefs have the same status as opinion: they are eminently discardable. The reason for this being, that belief all too frequently consists of treating unsupported assertions uncritically as fact, a process that should be seen to be absurd the moment one recognises this essential aspect thereof. Quite simply, anyone who treats unsupported assertions uncritically as fact, is committing an error of such an elementary nature, that vigorous exposure and highlighting thereof is a public duty for anyone who has regard for the proper rules of discourse.

Feel free to say anything you want....I'm pretty much askin' for it hahaha

You asked, and thus you received.

"Why we are all here on this earth as human beings?"

What makes you think there is a "why"?

"I would like to know what you guys think about people like myself who believe in Jesus Christ."

I think you have been indoctrinated to forgo rational thought when it comes to your religious beliefs.

"I would like to know why some Athiests seem to hate followers of Jesus."

The door swings both ways. Many (also not saying all) Christian seem to hate atheists... and Muslims, and gays, and brown people, and Democrats, and pretty much anyone who doesn't look and think like them. Even if an individual Christian does not hate, Christianity itself is a very hateful religion.

"Why do some Atheists mock, make fun of, and ridicule my beliefs?"

If you don't want you beliefs to be ridiculed, try not to have such ridiculous beliefs. Did you ever see the South Park episode about Joseph Smith? As ridiculous as Latter Day Saints seem to other Christian denominations, that's pretty much how all religions look to atheists.

I don’t hate religious people in general. I don’t really understand how people of normal intelligence can genuinely believe in ‘gods’.

Unlike yourself I don’t respect everyone’s opinions, merely their right to express them. I don’t respect religious beliefs, superstitions, myths etc but I respect people’s rights to have them, and to express them without imposing them on those who don’t share them.

You ask why some atheists ridicule religious beliefs. I ridicule them because I consider them ridiculous: talking snakes, 900-year-old people, divine immaculate conceptions and zombie messiahs - it’s nonsense, and worthy of ridicule.

And I don’t consider there is a ‘why’ inherent to our existence. I consider there is a ‘how’, ‘when’ and ‘where’. To me, ‘why’ in this context implies a purpose to existence and I am aware of no compelling evidence of it. That’s not to say one cannot imbue one’s existence with meaning.

Because its a small view - everything is linked as an example you have iron in your blood where did it come from - it was created when a stared died over 7 billion years ago - who would of thought a star that exploded over 7 billion years ago had a direct link to us. You breathe oxygen - where did it come from - single celled plant life converted all the CO2 to oxygen - at the time that plants life had no meaning - but it had a huge impact on the earth - it allowed us to be. When we exhale all the plant life inhales that balance is important. My point is there is way more going on that we can imagine and its in the big picture not the small ones. To bring it all down to one view is impossible. As I said I don't know and neither does anyone else. It will always remain a great mystery and obviously we are not meant to know.