Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are deists spiritual but not religious?

Deists are simply people who believe in God - "deo." They can belong to a religion or not.

No, that's a theist.

de·ism

noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

Much more specific. So is someone who believes the above spiritual but not religious?

No - a theist is someone who practices a [b]theology, i.e., a religion[/b].

No. A theist is someone who believes in the existence of God. period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are deists spiritual but not religious?

Deists are simply people who believe in God - "deo." They can belong to a religion or not.

No, that's a theist.

de·ism

noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

Much more specific. So is someone who believes the above spiritual but not religious?

No - a theist is someone who practices a theology, i.e., a religion.

Spiritual is getting to be the new religious. In that poll, 75% of the respondents said they were spiritual, or spiritual and religious, -- but only 6% said they were religious only. Not saying which is right or wrong, it's just the way things are going these days. The "religious only" people continue to lose ground.

spiritual:

spĭr′ĭ-choo͞-əl
adjective
Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not material; supernatural.
Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
Not concerned with material or worldly things.

A deist might be spiritual, but most likely they are not. Jefferson, of course, was a famous Deist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are deists spiritual but not religious?

Deists are simply people who believe in God - "deo." They can belong to a religion or not.

No, that's a theist.

de·ism

noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

Much more specific. So is someone who believes the above spiritual but not religious?

Anonymous wrote:Are deists spiritual but not religious?

Deists are simply people who believe in God - "deo." They can belong to a religion or not.

Are deists spiritual but not religious?

From the link above: people who call themselves “spiritual but not religious” are less likely to attend services. “Only 17 percent attend weekly, while 32 percent attend monthly or yearly and half (49 percent) attend seldom or never.”

So pp who is obsessing about the “coolness” or “social acceptability” or whatever of religion is mistakenly trying to prove her point with data about people who don’t actually practice their religion but call themselves “spiritual.” Apples and oranges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we're all in agreement then? It's more socially acceptable these days to say you are "spiritual"? I like to say I'm a "seeker." That seems to satisfy everyone, and they usually don't try to pin me down on what I mean by that.

The discussion here has covered a lot of ground, but it hasn’t addressed the “social acceptability” of various words. So no, you can’t draw broad conclusions about things we haven’t discussed.

Also, I don’t agree with your premise. You’re coming at this as an atheist, and from a subset of atheists who think the words “religion” and “religious” are bad. Religious people obviously think differently and most probably wouldn’t agree with you that being “religious” is “uncool” (to borrow from your posts on another thread).

Who said that? I've never heard anyone say the words “religion” and “religious” are bad.

You know “bad” was just shorthand for “uncool” or “socially unacceptable,” don’t play coy.

Being spiritual is seen more and more as being more socially acceptable. Just read this thread. Unless you live in the Bible belt or somewhere like that.

Thank you for your thoughts. I’ve read this thread, and I’ve read the previous thread, and many people here and on the previous thread, as well as the dictionary, disagree with you. Your conclusions are coming from your anti-religion bias, and they’re not representative of anything but your opinions.

No. You haven't read the thread if you disagree. Many different people said that, and there was a post showing polling shows people who call themselves "spiritual" is increasing, and those callimng themselves just religious is declining.

You’re totally confused. You’re referring to people who have left their religion of birth but still think there’s something out there, maybe in nature or crystals or a sense of a higher power, and that’s why they call themselves “spiritual.” The debate you’re trying to force on everyone is about how people who are actually practicing a religion refer to themselves

Anonymous wrote:Within the Jewish world, this is something that has existed in a slightly different way forever. You get people who call themselves cultural Jews or "food" Jews or holiday Jews, etc. They identify as part of the Jewish people but they make it clear that they are carving out a place for themselves that is outside the framework of traditional religious observance and all that entails. And in my experience it's a very fluid thing, that people move in and out of different categories throughout their lives, including choosing to engage in traditional religious practice. But that key component, identifying as a member of the Jewish people, holds firm no matter what else they tack on afterwards.

I feel like spiritual vs. religious is a lot like this. People aren't rejecting the idea of something bigger than themselves but they want to step outside a prescriptive framework and find their own space. And I don't think it always has a negative connotation attached, I think for lots of people there is a genuine respect for prescribed religious practice even if it's not the path they choose for themselves.

+1

Within the Jewish world, this is something that has existed in a slightly different way forever. You get people who call themselves cultural Jews or "food" Jews or holiday Jews, etc. They identify as part of the Jewish people but they make it clear that they are carving out a place for themselves that is outside the framework of traditional religious observance and all that entails. And in my experience it's a very fluid thing, that people move in and out of different categories throughout their lives, including choosing to engage in traditional religious practice. But that key component, identifying as a member of the Jewish people, holds firm no matter what else they tack on afterwards.

I feel like spiritual vs. religious is a lot like this. People aren't rejecting the idea of something bigger than themselves but they want to step outside a prescriptive framework and find their own space. And I don't think it always has a negative connotation attached, I think for lots of people there is a genuine respect for prescribed religious practice even if it's not the path they choose for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we're all in agreement then? It's more socially acceptable these days to say you are "spiritual"? I like to say I'm a "seeker." That seems to satisfy everyone, and they usually don't try to pin me down on what I mean by that.

The discussion here has covered a lot of ground, but it hasn’t addressed the “social acceptability” of various words. So no, you can’t draw broad conclusions about things we haven’t discussed.

Also, I don’t agree with your premise. You’re coming at this as an atheist, and from a subset of atheists who think the words “religion” and “religious” are bad. Religious people obviously think differently and most probably wouldn’t agree with you that being “religious” is “uncool” (to borrow from your posts on another thread).

Who said that? I've never heard anyone say the words “religion” and “religious” are bad.

You know “bad” was just shorthand for “uncool” or “socially unacceptable,” don’t play coy.

Being spiritual is seen more and more as being more socially acceptable. Just read this thread. Unless you live in the Bible belt or somewhere like that.

Thank you for your thoughts. I’ve read this thread, and I’ve read the previous thread, and many people here and on the previous thread, as well as the dictionary, disagree with you. Your conclusions are coming from your anti-religion bias, and they’re not representative of anything but your opinions.

No. You haven't read the thread if you disagree. Many different people said that, and there was a post showing polling shows people who call themselves "spiritual" is increasing, and those callimng themselves just religious is declining.

This is a simple fact. I don't see how it is even controversial. https://lifewayresearch.com/2018/01/26/americans-say-theyre-spiritual-not-religious/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we're all in agreement then? It's more socially acceptable these days to say you are "spiritual"? I like to say I'm a "seeker." That seems to satisfy everyone, and they usually don't try to pin me down on what I mean by that.

The discussion here has covered a lot of ground, but it hasn’t addressed the “social acceptability” of various words. So no, you can’t draw broad conclusions about things we haven’t discussed.

Also, I don’t agree with your premise. You’re coming at this as an atheist, and from a subset of atheists who think the words “religion” and “religious” are bad. Religious people obviously think differently and most probably wouldn’t agree with you that being “religious” is “uncool” (to borrow from your posts on another thread).

Who said that? I've never heard anyone say the words “religion” and “religious” are bad.

You know “bad” was just shorthand for “uncool” or “socially unacceptable,” don’t play coy.

Being spiritual is seen more and more as being more socially acceptable. Just read this thread. Unless you live in the Bible belt or somewhere like that.

Thank you for your thoughts. I’ve read this thread, and I’ve read the previous thread, and many people here and on the previous thread, as well as the dictionary, disagree with you. Your conclusions are coming from your anti-religion bias, and they’re not representative of anything but your opinions.

No. You haven't read the thread if you disagree. Many different people said that, and there was a post showing polling shows people who call themselves "spiritual" is increasing, and those callimng themselves just religious is declining.