There are many types of religions. In previous threads I've discussed "Industrial Religions," the term used by philosophers to categorize the big ones (christianity, judaism, islam, to name the largest three we see in the West, but there are more, and big sub-sets. I can't speak to or about Eastern religions) that have sophisticated relationships with the running of nations, have large hierarchys and huge investments. They span the globe and they're big business. Part of what they do is influence what individuals believe and while they're at it, they collect lots of money and they don't pay taxes. Sounds like a pretty good business to be in if you can live with the dogma and reach a position of influence--whether you are an ardent believer or not.

There are many minor (for lack of a more potent term to describe them) religions around the world that also have hierarchys, but they are on a local, social level. They are what the big religions have tried to wipe out as fast as they can. The advancement into colonized regions was often first accomplished by the religious folks, and it's grievous to see the damage they did to the natural world and to the autochthonous religions they smashed along the way. In many New World areas there was a merging of the religions (I'll illustrate this by mentioning Mexico, where many big-C Catholics have incorporated some local deities as saints and built in local beliefs in large ceremonial ways).

Those small autochthonous religions I mentioned are what the big three once were, before they overgrew their boundaries, worked to justify their existence, and to build their power bases. I don't think it is the nature of all religions to proseletize, but those that do seem bound to become juggernauts on the landscape. When the big three left behind the regions from which they sprung, they lost much of their connection to the earth, and to the ceremonial micromanagement of specific regions. They have rototilled the rest of the world religions in their path.

Religion may or may not have anything to do with "spirituality." Readers of this thread may or may not claim affiliation with an organized religion, but when they look around their world, they can see evidence of conscious choices they have made regarding what in the world they choose to honor, respect, revere, or put above all else. That is the answer I would give DaveO who said What does "spiritual" mean? I have no idea. It's thrown around a great deal, and it seems to have emotional connections, but that's as far as I can follow it.

Other remarks I would respond to follow:

Little Hawk said I think it's an intermediate stage between primitive religious belief (gleaned from organized religions) and more advanced spiritual awareness (going way beyond organized religions).

This implies that agnostics will eventually end up as participants in primative religions or highly organized ones, or that they're in a vertical tug-of-war between the two positions. I would prefer to see this "I don't know" position on a horizontal sliding scale, but with other directions to travel, allowing an ecclectic accumulation of beliefs as they feel right, and not a choice of just two destinations. I don't think you meant your remark to sound that way, but it jumped out at me in that way as I read.

dianavan said The only way to know God, is to have faith.
If you aren't one of the faithful, you are probably agnostic or atheist.

Of course the dogma was bound to appear. dianavan tells us that "faith," that blind acceptance of the whole of the Big God story, is the only way to be connected.

Giok said What I can prove though is that hypocrisy would seem to be the order of the day in all religions.

We'll put dianavan and Giok together to hash this out. Check all weapons at the door.

As a helpful definition of faith is here. Scan down the page to it.

faith: a rational attitude towards a potential object of knowledge which arises when we are subjectively certain it is true even though we are unable to gain theoretical or objective certainty. By contrast, knowledge implies objective and subjective certainty, while opinion is the state of having neither objective nor subjective certainty. Kant encouraged a more humble approach to philosophy by claiming to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith-i.e., by distinguishing between what we can know empirically and what is transcendent, which we can approach only by means of faith.

In posting this definition of faith, I need to acknowledge that it came from a Kantian page, which is why I am leaving in his view of how faith and knowledge relate to religion. He allows for setting aside knowledge to make room for faith, and this is what many of those autochthonous religions do in today's sophisticated automated scientific world. I think the degree and political intent the the knowledge being set aside needs to be considered if one chooses to follow his line of reasoning. (How that setting aside impacts others' freedom and choices).

I'm not posting this in order to tie it all together with a tidy bow and place everyone into compartments, but to illustrate some points and to suggest that the expedient religious statements are working against those who would insert them into this thread. They help define the point, rather than dismiss the discussion.

SRS