I am an atheist.
A few years ago I was a believer in buddhist Ideas of nirvana and meditation.
Currently I am a believer in substance-free mind alteration. For example - Lucid Dreaming.
Are the majority of atheists sceptical about such things as buddhism and mind alteration without drugs? Or is what defines an atheist his enthusiasm for such things?
Atheism has nothing to do with logic, nor does theism. Some people may believe in one or the other for what they percieve to be logical reasons but, generally, it’s just faith or a lack thereof with no real extensive thought processes put behind it.
But to answer your question: No, I do not disbelieve in meditation or its effects on the mind and body. I believe it can help but only with people that have the natural inclination to do so. I personally do not have the patience to do it and have my own methods of establishing peace of mind, as does everyone.
And by the way, it’s skeptical. Not to nitpick, but that misspelling annoys me.
What defines an atheist is his lack of belief in a deity, or perhaps more accurately 9at least in my case), his belief in the lack of a deity. Nothing more. Certainly, the mindeset that leads to atheism fosters skepticism in other areas, but there’s nothing prevent an anteist from practricing, for instance, transcendental meditation or acupuncture or what have you. Personally, I’m skeptical of anything outside mainstream science which has not proven itself through the scientific method, but don’t speak for all atheists.
I’ve just been informed by a friend that sceptic is an accepted variation of skeptic so my apologies in correcting your spelling.
It’s not a mispelling, it’s the accepted spelling in the UK, and is also listed as an acceptable alternative in US dictionaries.
I had quite a long post ready for explanation of this. Along the lines of the ‘c’ version being acceptable in the UK. Q.E.D you must be a rival to cecil if not the man himself.
Well, I suppose the friend that corrected me is equal to **Cecil **too. Or did you not notice my post correcting my mistake in your haste to compliment QED?
I don’t meditate myself. If you said you were getting in touch with spirits through meditating, yes, I’d be skeptical of that, but I don’t think there’s anything to be skeptical about if you’re using it as a way to relax or focus or something of that sort.
Buddhists are atheists, or at least most of them are. And personally I’m much more skeptical of mind alteration with drugs than without.
Marley, would I be correctly interpreting your statement to read it as:
And personally I’m much more skeptical of mind alteration with drugs being a good thing than without.?
As I certainly am not too skeptical of the perception that people can alter their minds with drugs.
But that is.
How does atheism have nothing to do with logic?
I’m an atheist and I think it has everything to do with logic. To me, theism is illogical.
I’m an atheist too, if that matters.
The insistence upon evidence for acceptance might be logical. But in the absence of evidence, taking the next step and saying there never will be any isn’t.
I would suggest that you poll atheists about such things, as beliefs of atheists do tend to be varied, aside from their lack of belief in a deity.
Certainly there are many atheists who do not engage in buddhist practices nor mental alteration, myself included. If someone finds such things beneficial I find it all the better for them, but I personally do not derive benefit from such.
AFAIC, atheism doesn’t require that. If evidence arises, I will consider it. Logic requires it. 
Funny. I’m a believer in the exact opposite.
I guess it boils down to definitions. Atheist - one who denies the existence of God. I think that such a denial can’t come from logic.
It depends on why you’re an atheist. If you’re an atheist because you examined the world and found absolutely no evidence of the existence of a deity, then you’re probably skeptical about New Agey stuff too. If you’re an atheist because none of the existing religions feel right to you and you’ve never had a personal experience of a deity, then New Agey stuff may be right up your alley.
Atheism doesn’t require you to say there never will be any. The existence of SOME evidence wouldn’t persuade everybody, you might need a preponderance, or overwhelming evidence, or proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. I don’t think saying that that isn’t forthcoming is much of a stretch.
People in denial are attempting not to deal with something that they know is real. That sure isn’t what I’m doing. What I’m doing is not believing in an idea that doesn’t make any sense and has no evidence supporting it. If you think that’s illogical, you’re entitled.
I do not deny the existence of a god or gods, I just have found no evidence supporting the idea. I remain open minded but, as time goes by, also somewhat doubtful.