well I used to be an atheist too until my use of marijuana and even more so salvia divinorium, and I suppose the main reason I felt there was no 'God' was the whole: "well if there were a God why do I suffer and why is there so much murder and evil, does something that allows suffering murder and evil deserve me to call it 'God'?"... and I suppose even after experimentation with things that alter perception of energy such as marijuana or salvia divinorium one could still use those arguments as to explain there not being a 'God', however I was attempting to explain why I believe things are the way they are with there being a God, which is that if we were not given free will to say, walk in front of a moving car and get squished, then our experience of life would become trivialized and loose meaning and purpose. Meaning and purpose are underlying factors of beauty and art, again my argument as to the purpose of existence as we know it at least on the human plane.

You speak of DMT entities, which basically exsist on another plane of existence and are eternal beings, the argument that at the end of your human life you will cease to exists unless one lives in a certain way is often the sales pitch for most religions, which becomes nullified when you realize you will always be, always exist, for all eternity even if you lead a miserable life during your days as a human.

Maybe you hold different reasons for atheism? I too am like you, merely curious and seeking to further my understanding and explanatory power

One need not posit any unnecessary entities. That is, if an explanation does not require God, then it is more elegant and parsimonious to do without Her.

That's interesting that you presume you know the contents of not just one person's thoughts, but an entire class of individuals! Anyways, it's not a failure of imagination (unless somehow you do have access to the contents of imaginations and, moreover, have criteria for distinguishing their failure or success at the holistic, group level, to boot! Are you God? That would make all of this more sensible!) -- atheists can imagine all sorts of fun things that are compatible with the lack of a theism (e.g., metaphysical worlds with ectoplasm, biological facts about ghosts, a causally connected plurality of worlds -- think Hugh Everett -- or a causally disconnected plurality of worlds -- think David Lewis -- or both together, etc. In fact, with the exception of ectoplasm, in its form outside of analytic metaphysics, anyways, I know that atheists are responsible for originating these ideas and would be happy to namedrop if you're interested). Again, there is no reason to think that these people are inferior in imagination than you, though I do bow to the powers of your imagination for imagining itself so superior! Haha. Indeed, they are and were some of the sharpest and imaginative minds in their fields. Rather, it's the lack of assent to a belief, and not only that, but good reason not to assent. I think you've missed what I'm saying. Undoubtedly you'll reciprocate the former sentence against me (don't do that! it's unimaginative now that I've anticipated it). And I never said that you posited anything that you might, then, consider "laughably inadequate," though I admit I can't predict what is laughable to you since it would seem to be a large category -- you must be ticklish. If you are seeking a constructive exchange of ideas and not some spitting contest between those you deem laughable, unimaginative, and what not, you might do better to construe it as such -- that is, as an exchange -- or refrain from engaging a dullard like myself since your time is better served elsewhere. Forgive me, but, a lot of the language used here is a tad obnoxious, and I'm not sure what purpose wide-ranging parables serve when the domain of discourse is restricted much more finely. I'd have no problem if it was subsequent to an argument of your own, in order to reinforce it, drive it home with poetic force, which would be standard, but you seem to think it serves as a substitute, an ersatz argument. Though, your parable does hint at monism (think Spinoza, maybe), which, in my first post, I mentioned new-found sympathies towards. This isn't necessarily characterized by theism, and especially not so under the word's traditional use. But, of course, I may just not be imaginative enough to see the encompassing meaning (or certainly at least not how you're theoretically cashing it out other than "this idea seems nice and poetic". Help me out here! Otherwise, you've a very Cartesian, "you're just not meditating hard enough!", move going on =P Anyways, if for some reason you can't resist from calling the thoughts of other intelligent people, similar to yourself I have no doubt, unimaginative and laughable in further posts, I should be a little courteous to your time and mention that I won't have an interest in responding to them. A mutual level of respect, or something close to it, (after all, we're all trying to figure this thing out together) would be generous of you. Cheers.

How do you know?