In alex's post "Defining Religion", he questions the possiblity of living an entirely non-religious life. "Does religion dictate humanity or does humanity dictate religion?"

This is a question that I also ask. I do not belong to a religion, but I have very distinct morals and beliefs. Alex seems to identify this as a form of religion, and indeed it does match one of his six quoted definitions of religion, number six:
"Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: [i.e.] to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

However, when is something religion, and when is it just a way you choose to live? My particular spirituality is more involved with realizing and standing in awe of the very fact that chance and evolution allowed everything to exist, and that there's no possible way for us to know what is going on outside our little world. It could be best described, I suppose, as an awe of science and the way things are. These beliefs are not directly involved with morality, there is no diety telling me what's right and wrong or offering sage advice in its example. My morals are designed to help me lead a life without hurting myself or others, and to grow up respected and loved and respecing and loving others. They are created to suit my individual life and updated as I grow. Thus I dont fit with any of the other definitions of religion, all of which center around adhering to a predetermined set of morals.

I would argue that morality is not purely the realm of the religious. It is possible to have morals and beliefs without attributing them to any supernatural or higher power. To live without religion would not mean "not having guidelines of any kind to living." as Alex argues, it would simply mean that these guidelines are not spiritual.