To me I identify as agnostic because many atheists get annoyed when I say I just don't know what's out there .
Atheism, to many, means a militant disbelief but truth be known we just don't know. I choose to not be attacked for legitimate ignorance. I don't know what (if any) role consciousness plays in reality as we know it.
I've had too many unexplainable things happen in my life. I don't know what they are I just know I can't explain them scientifically. Just because something can't be measured YET doesn't mean it isn't there. Once upon a time humans had no idea that there were bacteria on our skin that is necessary for life.
With that said to ask me to believe in magic tricks, a zombie Jesus, a celestial virgin or a talking snake out of faith is just plain stupid.

@strgazr63 All Atheists are Agnostic as well, why should they be annoyed at you for being the same?
Perhaps they're annoyed because you haven't made up your mind as to whether you're a believer or a non believer, which has nothing directly to do with Agnosticism which is about knowledge, not beliefs.

@zblaze I am open to a belief in something that has not yet been scientifically proven yet - I just don't know what. It might just be my cat. I have been literally screamed at because I won't say that this life is all there is and nothing else. I don't know that. Militant atheists can be an angry lot. I simply refuse to partake in any form of organized religion.

@strgazr63

It's a fair and logical position to say you don't know. I agree. How can we know? We can just believe or not believe based on the evidence. To say "I am an atheist" is simply denying the proposition that there is in fact a god, not stating there isn't one. That would take on the burden of proof, having to provide evidence for non existence.
Spiritual is a word I don't like because it's really wishy washy. It means something different to everyone who uses it, ranging from human consciousness to artistic creativity to "universal power."

@strgazr63 I'm a militant atheist. My weapon of choice is a word processor. Do I know that this life is all there is and nothing else? NO. I suspect it but none of us have any proof.

@strgazr63 I guess for some people, religious or spiritual, whether a proposition is true or not has no influence on their decision to believe it or not believe it.

I sure couldn't live like that.

,@Athena Very nicely said.

Thank you for your answer. Would you be willing to share why?

@Athena It simply has to do with a person's description of themselves, I consider myself neither, therefore I need not agree or disagree.
I hope that's an adequate answer to your question.
At the end of my life my body will decay and support new life. As far as my consciousness to quote porky pig "That's all folks!"

@oldFloyd

I totally agree. The author asks not how one describes himself or herself, but whether "spiritual or not religious" is a cop out. "Spiritual in his opinion is just a mask for a modern (wishy washy) religion that doesn't conform to traditional dogmas.

I think what you're saying is you might agree with that? He's actually saying you either believe or you don't; man is either on his own or there's a higher force/power (whatever you call it). "Spiritual" does not save you from being a believer. It just makes you too afraid to say it.

That's his position and the proposition. You agree with him or not. You answered a different question I think.

And it might be fair to say the question mattered to you or you would have skipped it entirely (?).

@Athena my last sentence said what I meant when I'm dead ? I'm dead. That's it the song is over.

Yeah give me spirits any day, Whiskey, Vodka, Rum, etc.

Are they like ghosts Nam? Do they live forever?

Why has no one liked this comment? It's like saying I believe in baby bunnies but not full grown rabbits that's why.

I do not believe in anything supernatural. Used to study it and believe it all, but not today. Why? There is no evidence. Many people say they know 98% of something is false but ask about the remaining 2 percent. They are fooling themselves.

I believe taking a side, in this article, refers to taking a stand on whether there is a higher power or not. People don't want the affiliation to a particular religion and its dogma, so "spiritual" is a better alternative, all the while still believing in a higher force of some sort.

Either man is on his own, or there is a higher power watching over him which may not fit into an existing religion, but is a belief in God nonetheless.

@Athena Well, I didn’t much care for the dismissive tone of the article. I also don’t exactly agree with there being sides either. Truth does works that way, with rigid sides of true & false. I don’t think the same can be said of philosophy or religion.

If someone says they are spiritual but not religious, I’m fine with that, even if I don’t understand it. So long as it’s an honest statement, I won’t offer much criticism.

@Allamanda

I like this - thank you!

I find the word "spiritual" coming from the root word "spirit" confusing. It denotes an incorporeal entity. I wish there were another word to describe the many perspectives people are offering here.

I like the concept associated with connections and influences that are part of the human experience, which are not tangible (as you described them). I just want a different word! The one that exists doesn't resonate with me. It still has a "god" connotation.

@Allamanda, @indirect76

I agree it had a dismissive tone.

@Athena IMO, taking a “stand” on whether or not there is s higher power is the ultimate in blind arrogance. Why should you take a stand on something you can’t define or understand? The appropriate response to the overwhelming miracle of existence is abject awe and bewilderment.

Nature herself is a higher power—higher than our dream-like and illusory bubble of perception.

@Athena, @indirect76 I’m with you 100% indirect. You have made a profound statement.

@WilliamFleming

The author is not asking anyone to take a stand. He is saying if you call yourself "spiritual, you don't like dogma and traditional practices of religion, but you're still a theist.
He says you believe it's only man, or it's not only man. Just because one believes God doesn't take on a traditional form, doesn't mean it negates the belief in a higher power.

The word "spiritual" used to describe one's personal journey, as another contributor did here, is perfect, IMO.

"this rather leaves out those who don't and possibly never have, believed in a higher power or a god, but do think that however you express it (the collective unconscious, the soul/spirit, that which makes us human...) can be worked on/with (by practicing meditation, by living a good life, or otherwise) to effect a higher level of (reason, resonance, humanity, enlightenment). Usually without the involvement of other people, or the need to talk about it!"

@Athena The author might not be asking anyone to take a stand, but he is condemning those who don’t.

From the article: “The trouble is that “spiritual but not religious” offers no positive exposition or understanding or explanation of a body of belief or set of principles of any kind.”

In other words, the author sees trouble where people don’t conform to authority. He must be an eldest sibling. I fail to see anything weak or vacillatory about rejecting church dogma in favor of deep personal awareness and appreciation for the gifts of life and conscious awareness.

I intend to continue being spiritual, whether spirituality is religious or not. I simply don’t care—in fact I am religious. But I agree that atheists and agnostics can be spiritual as well.

@WilliamFleming You might just be a believer

@WilliamFleming

I can definitely take a stand on whether pixies and fairies exist. I would not be able to prove they don't, but I can say with confidence that there is no evidence they exist.
The same goes for a god.

When someone uses "spiritual to describe a personal journey that is part of a human experience, that's one thing. Then I agree the non religious can be spiritual, if it is how one wishes to describe this journey. If "spiritual" is used to describe a connection to higher powers, the"non believer" may actually be a believer.

@Athena There seems to be a lot of frantic concern over whether someone believes or disbelieves certain things, but belief is nothing but a value judgment, an emotion, and is of little significance. When it comes to the deep questions about ultimate reality belief or disbelief are totally inappropriate. As I see it, the only honest and logical response to reality is a sense of awe and bewilderment.

You are certain there is no evidence for a god, but you have not defined that god. There is most certainly an ultimate reality outside our sensory realm. I would not choose to call that God, but some people do, You can put whatever silly label you want on ultimate reality but its comprehension is out of our range.

God as described in the Bible is just mythical, but that in no way proves that all god concepts are invalid. And it does not invalidate spirituality as an attitude toward what is.

@Athena, @zblaze It’s not a question of belief. I am totally bewildered.

@WilliamFleming
Bewilderment and awe are very lovely things.

@WilliamFleming Atheism vs Theism is a question of belief the same as Fairies and Afairieism.

Bewilderment is a cop out IMO.

@zblaze My opinion is that belief and disbelief are both cop outs. Anyone can express belief or disbelief but bewilderment requires the courage to look directly at the stark implications of reality.

Childhood fairytales are not the same as ultimate reality or the deep implications of existence. There’s not the slightest bit of similarity. Your analogy falls way short.

It’s a good analogy if you are talking just about biblical myths. I’m with you on that part but have long since lost interest in arguing against what is obviously mythical stuff. Move on.