"I am not a religious person, but I am spiritual."

What does this mean to those who fall into this category? I personally wouldn't use the term 'spiritual' to describe that sense of unity one has with the universe, so I don't quite understand what people mean by this....

p.s. there may be some argumentation in this thread, so if you just want to blog about your life, and ignore all the arguments, please avoid posting.

Thanks.

It means that they don't ascribe to any one dogma yet have experienced the divine.

I take it to mean they don't believe in any particular religion but have a vague belief in some supernatural concepts.

Long but absolutely worth it: Tim Minchin - Storm (Live)

Which divine? define divine? because my definition of divine (tripping on magic mushrooms and viewing multiple alternate realities at the same time) is probably not the same as yours or others...

This is not really addressing my question either. What's a "vague belief in some supernatural concepts"? like ghosts?

That's the problem. I don't think you can generalize and there probably many different kinds of "spiritual" persons.
I understand this as there being some higher power which may not be personal. For example someone I know believes everything and everyone in the universe is connected because we are all energy. I have yet to grasp the practical implications of this. However in his view this makes certain concepts like homeopathy, light nourishment or meridian lines (traditional chinese medicine) at least plausible.
Another person I knew practised Reiki, yet another believed in Tarot.
So whenever I hear "spiritual" I am reminded of esoteric or new age practices where the believer picked and chose whatever makes sense to him because he feels there is more to this life than just he physical world.

Am I accurate in interpreting this to mean - spirituality is:
A: the knowledge that we are all connected by energy;
B: new age healing practices, tarot readings, reiki and other beliefs that imply the existence of the non-physical or supernatural powers/forces and;
C: feeling that there is more to this life than just the 'physical' world.

Does this capture your above conceptualization of spirituality accurately or have I missed something important?

Particularly C. I think those are examples and the list is not complete. Someone might hold several of those or similar beliefs.

The confusion comes from the laxity of broadening term usage. There's spirituality which is derived from religion then there's modern day secular spirituality. People don't realize the origin of spirituality is from religion and don't know to make a distinction between spirituality and secular spirituality.

The word spirit came from the ancient languages word for breath.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=spirit

Spirituality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit

etymology of the word spirit:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=spirit

I can understand when a deist says I don't know what God is but I feel some presence or something and than says he is spiritual but not religious. But when people who follow the bible and Jesus' teachings make claims that they are not religious but only spiritual I find this claim to be ridiculous.

I will just say that spiritual can be interpreted in many ways. Numinous experiences are usually what you will find when asking for a description from a person. Maybe this thread will just be an exercise in quibbles over what the term spiritual means.


Tim Minchin clip is a gem; made my evening. Thanks Louis!

I think everyone has their own unique understanding of what it is. For me the divine is God. Others would not like that label and may struggle to define what it is that they have experienced. I think your definition of the divine is every bit as valid as mine. It really just depends on the person and what they have experienced.

I have no problem with this definition.

Meaning lies as much
in the mind of the reader
as in the Haiku.

Tim Minchin is a genius.

I think 'The Absolute' encapsulates what most consider divine or spiritual reality (my bold):

The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. It is sometimes used as an alternate term for "God" or "the Divine", especially, but by no means exclusively, by those who feel that the term "God" lends itself too easily to anthropomorphic presumptions. The concept of The Absolute may or may not (depending on one's specific doctrine) possess discrete will, intelligence, awareness or even a personal nature. It is sometimes conceived of as the source through which all being emanates. It contrasts with finite things, considered individually, and known collectively as the relative. As such, the word "Absolute" signifies a negative concept: non-relative, non-comparative, or without relation to anything else.

What does this have to do with this thread? Not trying to sound like an ass, just curious.

The character "Storm" is the kind of a person I think of when I hear "I am not religious but I am spiritual..."

This.

Plus, Tim Minchin is a genius.

I agree with this, and this is precisely what's annoying me about it. If we can't narrow it down and define it in some reliable manner, in which there is a consensus then does it really exist? after all, that which you can't measure, does not exist.
Fellow trippers =)
You mean energy? as noted by Louis earlier in this thread....

Or are you referring to some metaphysical existence outside of the collective energy that comprises the universe?

I get it now. I didn't notice that you had already posted a link to this. I thought Kb was just randomly throwing out a name lol.

This strikes me as pretty bad reasoning.

So you naturally reject the null hypothesis, when there is nothing to measure, and conclude that something exists, although there is no way to find it?

That's not very scientific.

Sure, it's possible that it exists but we just haven't created an abstraction that can accurately and precisely describe it. pg_780 and I were talking about something similar to this in another thread. My point was that the divine is something to be experienced, not something to be believed in and that it is impossible to justify it to a skeptical person. This is because the divine is mostly ineffable. I made the analogy of trying to describe music to someone with words. It doesn't work well. pg_780 then made the point that we can communicate music abstractly. That is true but it has been relatively recently in human history that we have been able to do so. Perhaps in the future we will have a better understanding of consciousness and the divine and we will invent an abstraction that can describe it.

My personal view is that it's pretty cool that spirituality can mean so many different things to so many different people. I guess my advice to you VeeDDzz`is to not worry about whether "it" is true or not. Just enjoy the divine experiences that you have and not worry about trying to justify them to anyone. Just go with it.