9 4

"I'm spiritual not religious"

Spirituality is a word that has been watered down so much it seems to have lost any real meaning other than desribing an emotional state of being. The 2 words--spiritual & emotional--are interchangable. Do you find this to be true?

Tmchale 3 Nov 16

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Thanks to all for thoughtful feedback. I appreciate the comments.


Not really. Emotionality is a response. My understanding of spirituality is an internal recognition of a deeper level of being that cannot be identified.


I don't use the word myself, but some people on this site do. It means something else to them.

"Spiritual Atheists"
"SPIRITUAL: A Third Definition"


I don’t think the two words are always interchangeable, and I don’t think that spirituality is completely described as an emotion. You can be filled with murderous rage. That’s an emotion but isn’t spiritual.

In addition to emotions, I think that spirituality is accompanied by deep awareness and appreciation, where appreciation is to understand the value.. The resulting emotions, such as a feeling of reverence, are just byproducts.

Also, IMO belief and disbelief are both nothing but value judgments—emotions. To be totally mystified and bewildered—there’s an emotional side to that response, but it seems to me the most appropriate response to our situation as consciously aware beings.


Yeah and I'm a drunk but I'm not an alcoholic.


A lot of people on this site define it as, a feeling of awe in the face of nature. Which is a fairly specific emotion.

Personally if someone tells me they are spiritual, I wonder what they will taste like, blended with some soda and a dash of lime.

Haha, cheers.


Pretty much


What does "real meaning" even mean?

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

I recently attended a talk on electro-smog. The woman who presented it has a blog She admitted she did not have a meter and condemned all new sources of lighting CFL's and LED's. In our discussion you mentioned LED's are not as bad as CFL's and I looked it up and they emit even less than incandescent "An incandescent bulb powered at 50 or 60 Hz emits electromagnetic waves of the same frequency, but not as intensely as the cabling within the walls. An LED emits even less of that frequency due to its greatly reduced current (radiation is proportional to the AC current). LEDs provide an opportunity to radiate even less: As they require DC, the power supply is full-wave rectified. The better power supplies include a capacitor to smooth the the voltage, potentially reducing the 50 or 60 Hz radiation to zero from the LED." I was not impressed with her presentation. However, this led me to another problem in that incandescents use much more energy and can tax older wiring and may lead to fires. So, for personal health (supposed) the world needs to go back to consuming more energy? I think not.


I think spirituality is very subjective, with a different meaning to different people.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:427237
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.