I think that a major difference between non-believers and believers is that believers consider the human being to be a spiritual being whereas the nonbeliever considers men to be just mind, reason, intellect, and a physical body, but does not acknowledge the spiritual part of man
You likely have a different understanding of what spiritual means than I do, which not tied to literal spirits such as souls, angels, demons, and gods like the believer conception. Spirituality is a state of mind and is contained in your list above under mind. My sense of the spiritual is like other intuitions I have - what is good, what is valuable, what is beautiful, and what is funny. The evidence of the senses is interpreted twice - first, what it signifies about our reality, and second, how we feel about it.
The spiritual experience is a pleasant one experienced as connection to one's world, of belonging, of things being good and right, and of reality being mysterious awesome, and of gratitude to be a participant. It occurs when contemplating a garden or the night sky, and understanding one's connection to each.
This is the opposite of a sense of alienation or disconnection, which is what the Abrahamic religions often teach. You are not of this world, one is told. You don't belong here, the world of base matter and flesh, where your soul is imprisoned and trying to escape to be somewhere else rather than this world which he is admonished to not be a part of. That's pretty much the opposite of my definition, and much closer to alienation from than connection to our world.
to say that a religion is not true since faith is not a path you would take to truth, is illogical.
Disagree. In logic, a non sequitur, which is a belief not supported by what preceded it, is considered fallacy (illogical). Faith generates nothing but non sequiturs - insufficiently supported claims to justify belief.
Is Christ superior to other Prophets/Founders? Just keep saying yes until it goes in.
That's a pretty good description of self-indoctrination.
Just as I commented that the poster above must have a different definition of spirituality if he applies it to Abrahamic religious beliefs about spirits, you use a different definition of truth than I do. I don't call an idea correct unless it is demonstrably correct and can be used to anticipate outcomes in reality. For the believer, truth often means any comforting opinion which has been accepted uncritically.
the prophecy of events coming true
Biblical prophecy is very human. There is nothing there to suggest divine prescience. It's weak prophecy, lacking specificity, and often predicting the likely, sometimes after the fact, is generally not useful "foreknowledge," and sometimes leading to self-fulfillment.
Scientific prophecy, which outperforms biblical prophecy in specificity and usefulness, is also human, although unlike scripture, represents the vanguard of human thought. Biblical prophecy can't compete with that, yet it doesn't cause us to invoke gods.
The Bible is a history book
The Egyptian captivity and the exodus are contradicted by the archeology. It turns out that some of scripture refers to real people, places, and events, but you can't tell which from the words. You need empirical support for the claims to believe they were history, which means the scriptures aren't useful for learning history.
