check your definition of atheist. An absence in the belief in god does not rule out magic or unicorns. I like to think most critical thinking atheists are also skeptics. but the word does not rule it out.

@MsDemeanour Atheists are not so because of a narrow definition of a word in a dictionary. Atheism is a world view, and that world view pays a lot more deference to objectivity and to science and to rational thinking, which takes the atheists to reject magical thinking... and unicorns.

@Rodatheist Definitions are so important as we have found here. Perhaps definitions reflect cultures. Where I live it is not particularly cool to believe in a god, but that doesn't stop ignorant people adopting other farcical notions. Conspiracy theories seem to be the new religion in my country. People seem to find comfort in believing in things bigger than themselves, being able to find blame or understanding for the inexplicable and having the camaraderie of like thinkers. Anyway perhaps you can source your definition of atheism that isn't an opinion piece.

@TheMiddleWay it would be interesting, not just the group data though, but the anecdotal info would also be fascinating.

@TheMiddleWay Your premise is flawed. Atheists don't by definition "unbelieve" any more than agnostics.

Everyone is different in how they experience a mind-altering drug. Some are more susceptible to "life-changing" experiences, while others find them merely recreational. I also noted that the average age of the drug takers in the study was 25, a time of life when people frequently change their beliefs radically.

This was also a self-selected study, which means they have no idea how many atheists took psychodelic drugs and went, "Huh. Neat colors," and that was the end of it. They also have no idea how many "found God" for a year or two and then said, "Man, those drugs messed with my fuckin head."

For the study to have any meaning at all, they also need to research how many self-identified atheists remained atheists and are just as happy. There's no basis for comparison. It's a study of two groups that had similiar experiences, one with and one without drugs. There's NO participation by atheists who remained atheists.

Consider who funded and helped write the study (the Council on Spiritual Practices) and it seems as if they reached a foregone conclusion. There's no indication how they polled for participants. Did they put out an invitation for people who dramatically "found God" to come talk about what happened? That would be stacking the deck in favor of the result they wanted.

In short, all due respect to Johns Hopkins, this study seems like a crock.