No, don’t! It’s crowded over here. 
Am I to take it that you don’t agree with the statement “Using terms that everybody understands is better than using terms that spark a discussion about the meaning of those terms when they’re used”?
I refuse to answer, on the grounds that this thread once had aspirations to be about something else.
This is why I stay out of Great Debates – I don’t enjoy arguing about this shit.
The fact that the terms in general use have meanings that aren’t intuitively obvious to you doesn’t make them bad or unclear terms – it means that you don’t understand the ways that these terms are used. The fact that you would prefer that other terms be used does not make those terms preferable.
And with that, I’m bowing out.
Complete agree - if we can all use terms we understand. I don’t agree with your terms, I like twick’s.
Unorganized religion - most Wiccan covens I’ve been around (some are VERY organized, however), the first Unitarian church I visited. Those were unorganized religions.
Organized religion - the Evengelical Mega Church my cousin goes to - Basketweaving for Christ at 10:45. Very organized.
My grandmother was both religious (Catholic, attended mass daily most of her life) and spiritual (actually prayed when she went to church, felt “God” in her heart.)
This is hard for people who are neither spiritual nor religion (and have never been) to grasp - but there are plenty of people who belong to organized religions and aren’t the least bit spiritual.
Dangerosa – thanks, that was extremely clear.
Priceguy – what she said.
And with that I’m bowing out.
That’s too bad because I had responded but it didn’t take, as follows:
Whereas I’m simply lying about my spirituality? :rolleyes:
As Jeremy Irons might put it, you’ve no idea how deeply spiritual I am, if you allow me to define “spiritual.” Emerson, Whitman, Thoreau and crowds of other like-minded people were all (I believe) ultimately opposed to church-going, to orthodoxy of any kind, to Christianity and Western thought to a greater or lesser degree, yet, t.a.g.o.l.d., also were brooders over moral and mystical issues, over which they tried to fit some kind of rational worldview (but where they couldn’t, they accepted that, and allowed as to the troubing contradictions in their thought-processes.) IOW, I don’t just say, “Fuck that noise,” but to the degree that spritual thought coincides with working out one’s moral and ethical values, I am spiritual.
Granted that small degree of overlap may not mean shit to a tree, or to you. One of my ex-gfs assumed that I was the embodiment of evil atheism so she could comfortably dismiss my thinking (and this was when she professed to be in love with me, so just imagine how she’s characterizing me these days) so to the extent that I stand accused of oversimplifying Xians into mindless babbling drones, it works the other way as well: I am not devoid of morals, I have my own values, I try to sense the pulse of the universe (which I think is far more mechanistic than most religious folks) and I try to live as aware as I can of the principles I’ve decided make the most sense. That, to me, is a kind of spiritual. YMMV.
Well, because they’re 7 and 9 years old and attending catholic school, and I haven’t felt it necessary to tell them yet. They also believe in Santa Claus. In the not-too-distant future I’ll be able to share my views on both with them.
Right now is not that time.
Ah! Makes sense.
God (sic), this thread is like the mafia … it just keeps drawing me back in.
I don’t think atheistic = amoral, and I wouldn’t dream of saying you were devoid of morals. Ditto on living by principals.
However, I think most people use spiritual to refer to some kind of non-mechanistic reality, and therefore for someone whose worldview is as mechanistic as yours seems to be, calling yourself “spiritual” does seem disingenuous.
I’ll withdraw “dishonest” though.
Principles.
Yes, I do know the difference.
Fair enough. 
To make up for my hijacking transgression; I can’t speak for myself, but certainly my friends have broken up with or been broken up with people for pretty flimsy reasons. I think religiousness being the reason behind a breakup or big change is just like any other kind of reason you don’t understand.
You did note that it wasn’t me but Eve who asked the original question, right? So why pretend that this is about me?
So now “spiritual” means “actually religious” and “religious” means “religious in external appearance”? That’s not what twickster said.
I can’t see how a Wiccan coven or a Unitarian church could possibly be unorganized. They meet to exercise their religion, right? That’s organized.
Back to the OP - are you worried that someone believing in irrational things might act irrationally, or that someone involved with something else (like a church) might get drawn to that away from you? If the former, I wouldn’t worry, since it isn’t like atheists are immune from acting irrationally in relationships. If the latter, I can kind of see it depending on what she’s involved with.
Retreating into the non-spiritual non-religous corner.
Spiritual means internally connected to the external world - the recognition of something larger than self. - at least, that would be my definition of spiritual.
Religious means practicing a religion.
Some Wiccans are organized, some are disorganized, some are unorganized. There is more to being “organized” than getting together once in a while. Like a charter. Membership roster. Maybe even filing with the IRS. Or at least how I recognize the term. But, we are all agreeing that these are generally agreed upon terms and that yours are better because everyone understands what you mean by organized? Right?
No, I’m just thinking that religious people are advertising in advance their high level of comfort in subscribing to irrational ideas. A less spiritual/religious/mystical SO will more likely own up to holding some irrational ideas when you expose them, and fess up to acting on self-interested insubstantial positions (“Okay, I know this doesn’t really make sense but it is how I feel”) as opposed to a religious person’s confidence in making you wrong (“I feel confident that what my heart is telling me to do is simply right”). Maybe it’s just that I feel there’s something essentially condescending and frustrating about the thought processes of someone who puts her faith in the Lord. “I trust that this makes sense somehow in the next world” sort of thing, instead of owning up to “This I guess this is pretty fucked up of me–sorry.” I can take the latter a lot better than I can the former.
Do you feel this way about people who hold beliefs different from yours in areas other than religion?
May I point out that they aren’t advertising - you are asking.
My first husband was a complete and utter loon who thought he was a fairy in his past life. Religious affliliation: None
“Internally connected to the external world”? I don’t even know where to start understanding that one.
Not to mention that it apparently has nothing to do with twickster’s definitions, whose alleged advantage is that they are used by everybody except me.
If you think that a group that meets to practice religion doesn’t constitute organized religion… then damnit, you got me. Now let’s discuss what “is” means.
Can you give me an example of an area other than religion in which someone feels comfortable holding strong positions that are incapable of being explained to anyone who doesn’t already hold them?