I've deleted my previous reply. It was too hasty.
Yes, I can reasonably guess that his statement was a matter of opinion; however, that is not how it was phrased. I will respect the wording people choose because, crazy me, it may just be deliberate. If I am forced to assume that all such statements are opinion, by what possible means could a person make such a statement as an objective claim without having it interpreted as an opinion?
Or would you like me to merely assign meanings to your words that aren't actually written? Is this the practice you prefer?
One can't interpret language literally as though sentences are based on a calculus of word meanings and a strict grammar as to how to use them. I can easily give an example of a situation in which someone not only means but expresses a thought entirely different from the uttered sentence. And now I will do so...
Imagine it's shortly before Valentine's Day. A young couple holding hands walks past a jewelry store. They stop and look in the window. The girl notices a very pretty but not terribly expensive necklace. She says "That's a very nice necklace."
Unless you are a total dolt with no sensitivity to how language is actually used, you understand that her actual meaning can't be understood through strict grammatical analysis.
She's actually saying something along the lines of "I'd be happy if I got that necklace for Valentine's Day."
I thought she was saying..
"Get that for me if you intend to ever see me nekid again"
Interpretation its all in the eyes of the beholder.
One can't interpret language literally as though sentences are based on a calculus of word meanings and a strict grammar as to how to use them.
That's not what I'm doing. In this case, context implies, but does not dictate. You could have been making a statement of opinion or an objective statement. While opinion seems more likely, I cannot simply default to that assumption, or else I remove you of your ability to communicate the objective statement.
I think it depends a lot on what you think this spiritual feeling is.
I look at the universe and feel part of it, in a scientific way.
The atoms composing my body come inevitably from the core of a star.
This sense of being part of all this is what I call my spirituality.
I need no god to feel this, and I don't think there's any secret meaning behind this.
Does it classify me as religious?
I just don't get where spirit comes in. Spirit in what sense? A ghost? Enthusiasm (school spirit)? Why does the word "spirit" apply at all?
totally. I understand that even Carl Sagan and his wife Ann Druyan identified the cosmos as a "spiritual" thing. As much respect and adoration I have for the two of them. I fail to see any reason to use the word "Spiritual" in describing the cosmos. Sure. We're all connected. But how is the universe "of the spirit". The "spirit" is something that primitive man invented in a means of coming to terms with death. Religion is the mythology of which.
I see that it's quite difficult to separate the word spirit from its religious meaning. But for me, the spirit is our consciousness and our emotional feelings when we relate to the rest of the universe. For me, being spiritual means experiencing reality by looking at the bond that links everything in nature. It's something like realizing you're part of a family a long way bigger than you thought. :) I don't see any relation to a religion in this. For sure, I'm not alone in thinking something like that. Maybe, by the fact I'm Italian it's easier for me to get the root meaning of the word, and guess what? It's not religion related. "spirit" comes from the latin word "spiritus" that derives from the verb "spirare" to breathe. In Italian "respirare".
@ igor - yes, that sounds good to me. The word "spiritual" remains very vague, and I think that we can redefine it to mean something like you describe.
Interesting side note."Spiritus" which you describe as etymologically meaning "soul"l or "breath" relates to the Hindi word "atman" which means "soul" or "breath." The relationship between Hindi and English is clear to scholars but not recognized by most people on the street, and in fact our word "atmosphere" (the sphere of breathable air) is etymologically related the Hindi word "atman."
The sort of "spiritual" you describe seems divorced enough from what "spirit" ordinarily means that a word with less baggage would seem preferable. Do you have one?
Looking at igor's description, I would extend it to say something like "we are all one because we are all saved by the source of all goodness." That's the kind of spirituality I'm talking about, and I'm fine with using that word and ignoring all the baggage. It's not like "swastika" or "immigrant", it doesn't have nasty associations, just daffy ones, according to many people.
I'm not a dumbass, I'm a dipshit.