I agree with you.

I have seen a lot of people, religious and non-religious, become angry at the other side. All that happens is that anger, leads to hate. Try to help them calm down -- you cannot argue them out of their point-of-view; or walk away, leave them alone with their hate.

I spent 16 years in Santa Fe, NM where every other person is "spiritual" or into "spirituality" of some sort. It ran the gamut of religions and beliefs. Most were very committed to the "spirituality" that they discovered. They built their life around it, whatever it was.

I have been an atheist since second semester of my freshman year in college (1973). But I would often refer to myself as "spiritual". I am a scientist as well as a science teacher (31 years). What I meant by "spiritual" was that I held reverence for the laws of physics and nature. I felt that I had a least a basic understanding of the physical laws of the Universe, and I saw them at work and was impressed with both there complexity and simplicity.

exactly

What is spiritual?

To me, it's of, or relating to, the nature of the relationship between the individual and the collective reality, and an individuals understanding of the nature of the relationship between themselves and All that Is. The something, whatever it may prove to be, that all of this flows from.

There's a really basic flaw in western materialistic thought, an underlying assumption in oir thinking - that we are THINGS that exist IN the universe.

We're not. We are not separate things existing in it, we are events of it happening locally. We're not a bubble floating on a stream, we're the stream playing at being a bubble right here. We are localized patterns of the flow of energy and matter that streams through us.

At the root of this conflict is the question, is it all meaningless or is there meaning?

Meaning is not necessarily the right word. I'm not sure if there is a word in English that expresses the idea here. It might be easier to illustrate what I mean by 'meaning' in contrast to the opposing point of view, which is that no, there is no meaning to any of this. It's all just a pointless accident, one rock banged another rock in just the right way, and here we are.

I don't agree. You didn't come into this world. You came out of it.

Anthropomorphic principles aside, the universe is a masterpiece of pattern. For example, oxygen combines with hydrogen and becomes water. This is not an accident. In fact it's the opposite of accident, it's the laws of chemistry at work. It's built into the universe. Boom, water. Also,  boom, life,  inevitable because it's built in, by the fundamental laws.

To say that we wouldn't be here to observe it if the conditions weren't just right, is, in my opinion, a cop out. It sounds reasonable, but it's a non sequitur. It is just as true to say that in 100% of the universe's that we can observe we find life.

If ones going to argue that it's random because it was nothing more than the interplay of physical laws, then they're making the mistake of thinking that the way the laws work is itself random and it isn't at all.

Yes, you said it, a deep feeling of connectedness to the universe is at the root of it. To see yourself as a child of the universe. Understand that spirituality is an attempt to explain that deep feeling.  The feeling came first, then the attempt to explain and understand it. I define spirituality as that attempt, however successful or unsuccessful it may be.

When people begin to make this realization, and they have all different ways of explaining it when they do, some of them better, some of them worse, some of them crazy, etc then generally the word spiritual begins to apply as it's usually used in these conversations.

Of course it's a vast interesting world of human thought, and along these lines you see everything from sheer brilliance to hustling shysters. But for the same reason that you shouldn't mock science because things like astrology and alchemy exist, you shouldn't mock spirituality because things like scientology and catholicism exist. There's science and then there's pseudo science. There's also spirituality and pseudo spirituality. Although really, there's a whole spectrum in between, as well on both fronts. People being people and all.

Science is most spiritual thing of all. Science is the attempt to get at the truth of what is, and therefore to get at the truth of what we are. But when science becomes scientism, the quest for the actual truth is less important then the dogma.

A wiser man than I -

Excellent talk, but the title is misleading. It should be 'don't confuse the spiritual with the abstract.'.

I think that when someone's panties get in a wad over the use of a word it say more about them than about the issue at hand. And while my panties are at the moment cleaned, pressed and fitting very nicely at the moment, thank you very much, I do have an observation to make. When I hear a religious person say they are spiritual, I take it to mean that they "believe with all their heart" that whatever ancient superstition they happen to subscribe to is "THE TRUTH!" I probably think that because I have observed it to be the case many times. When an atheist says it I'm not quite sure what it means. Is it a feeling of connectedness to the universe? To nature? To humanity? Or something else entirely? The word seems vague to me. I would hope that an atheist using the word spiritual would clarify just a bit.

Triggered being one of those worse words

Hehehe!

I just blocked an xian troll and an idiot agnostic who is 25%convinced of a creator....why let these creeps insult us Atheists as if we are religious??? I do not waste my time here with enemies of women forcing them to stay pregnant nor pretend alleged gawds deserve more respect than Pinocchio or unicorns

Totally agree. There are intolerant atheists just as there are intolerant theists.

I don't use the word "spiritual", but I do not criticize people who do -- so I understand your point. .

I am not at war with religion or god.

I usually use the words mental or emotional, depending on the context.

I am not offended when others use the word spiritual. They are free to do so. It is not necessarily a religious term.

Personally, it bothers me when people use words that are normally associated with religion. There is a movement to reduce religious sounding words with something more natural (in this case internally moving or awe). When I went to mass there was a nun (her order dressed in normal clothes) who was in her 80's. When she read the himily she was a whiz in neutralizing the gender specific words. Some people didn't like that. Words change to fit the times and, for me, neutralizing words should be part of the change. However, one should not make a big deal of it but let it happen naturally.

You might try 'spirited' or 'spritely', instead. (You strike me as a spirited sprite!).

Pretty simple. Spiritual implies something that cannot be detected, measured, or objectively demonstrated and is thus anathema to the rational empiricism of most atheists.

That was the point I was trying to make the other day, but which the other person could or would not see (I wonder was it you?)

When we choose our terminology, we get with it all the baggage it carries.
so when you say " I can't speak for others but when I (very rarely) use the word "spiritual" I am NOT using it as a religious or biblical term. I think of it more so under "pagan" terms in reference to the feeling of awe and wonder of nature."

YOU are now using a non standard definition for the term AND expecting others to see it as you are using it. Its is bound to cause confusion.

Its use promotes that self same belief system, whether you mean it to or not, you simply cannot foresee how others will see it, how they will interpret it, and the most common meaning is not "awe and wonder of nature" is it?

Language is a convention agreed upon by those who use it. If I say: “I drink water.” You know the exact meaning of those three words and can understand a clear message. Now, if I call you a “goose” and you ask me why, and I say “oh, I mean to say that your comments are epistemologically appropriate”, you will give me a weird look, and you should!! Because that is not the meaning of the word!! So, if you want to refer to “a pagan reference to the feeling of awe and wonder about nature” say it like that because using the word “spiritual”, which in the dictionary is define as either

1. relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things. Or
2. relating to religion or religious,
   that is what we, those who take the convention of language as a serious matter for effective communication, will understand!

So, coin your own word to mean “a pagan reference to the feeling of awe and wonder about nature”. That would be perfectly allowed and even admirable. But don’t tell us what we should incorrectly understand when you use a term that is otherwise well defined. And we atheists do fret about the word “spiritual” precisely because of its meaning.

Maybe some whiners are escaped from Alcoholic Anonymous 12 stepper spiritual lies ? Or lost money to Joel Osteen or some palm reader ? You are right spirit is fine whiskey or fresh air on my sacred mountain overlooking all of Lake Oneida....get over it Atheists who twist their panties up their butt crack over nature lovers...go argue with the idiot astrology nuts

The Seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are an enumeration of seven spiritual gifts originating from patristic authors, later elaborated by five intellectual virtues and four other groups of ethical characteristics. They are: wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord

I think atheists can be as fanatical as anyone else. I think religion should be tolerated as we want them to tolerate us. that doesn't mean I want to be forced to go to church or deal with religious fanatics, political fanatics, ideological fanatics or any kind of fanatic..