[Achilles]

Originally Posted by purifier

What GTA means is that there are some individuals who do not follow any specific denomination, organized religion or believe in the concept of religion itself -

Okay, but this...

Originally Posted by purifier

yet they believe in the existence of a all powerful creater, a supernal presence, a higher divine consciousness from there own point of view.

...is the definition of religious. Hence the confusion.

Originally Posted by purifier

In which, they do not believe their conscious entity "God" to have any connection to most of the world's religions unlike other people who believe the opposite.

This sounds like deism.

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

Doesn't follow any one faith necessarily to the letter, but still believes in a concept of some higher essence (God). "Spiritual but not religious" as it might be called. That's what I was thinking of, anyways. Not sure if it came across that way. These are people who believe in a concept of a higher being (God) without necessarily going with everybody else of that faith (assembly and interpretation).

Inventing your own religion is still religion.

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

"Religious": of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
These ones attending service/assembly and taking it literally.

I don't see how this particular definition has any relevance to your earlier argument. Could you please clarify?

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

"Both groups believe in God, one religious, the other not.

Back to square one while contradicting the first part of your post. If you're saying someone is spiritual but not religious, you can't say that they also have a specific concept of god at the same time. That's simply inventing your own religion (it doesn't matter whether that "religion" has a million followers or just one; it's a theology).

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

Both of which would still fall under, say, a scientist's view as of superstition either way--Unless I'm mistaken?

Well, a scientist or anyone familiar with a dictionary. I guess I'm still trying to follow the train of thought of your original argument, which is rather difficult with all these competeing concepts of "religious" floating around, competeing with one another.

You're saying that there is some obvious dicotomy that people either get or they don't, but when pressed, it seems obvious that we have to admit that both sides are the same in more ways then they are different.

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

I guess so far as you'd be concerned I merely pointed out a difference in people and their perceptions (those believing in God).

I'm not convinced that you did, however I'm still very interested in understanding the argument.