That's not how I see it. Spirituality is not a belief. It's a life orientation. I have seen atheists and agnostics who are clearly spiritual. As I said before, I think Carl Sagan was a very spiritual man. I also happen to think that several atheistic philosophies have spiritual elements. Existentialism, for example.

You mean thoughtful? Insightful? Inspirational?

If you want to call that spirituality, okay, sure, spirituality's great. I think that's just a muddling of terms, though. Spirituality does, after all, contain the word "spirit". I bet if you had asked Carl Sagan if he believed in "spirits" in any form, he'd tell you he didn't.

I don't know that anyone on earth doesn't experience what you're describing.

Something along those lines, but they don't really capture it. It's a kind of call to something greater than yourself.

Yes, but I don't think it's so much about believing in "spirits" as much as coming from spirit. That is, being driven by some higher calling.

Again, "spirit" isn't a thing. Unless you mean inspiration. Like "spirited speech".

If you mean spirit to be synonymous with soul, then I think you'd find Carl Sagan and the others you called spiritual taking issue with your description.

And the entire concept of existentialism is antithetical to the idea of a "higher calling". That's exactly what existentialism says there isn't.

There's certainly alot of assholes in California; but on the flip side, there are a lot of powerful forces and people in the state that are moving in invalidate Prop. 8.

Maybe that other guy will come back and say there's no way to prove or disprove that Jean-Paul Sartre existed.

But on the serious:

I personally eschew the term "spiritual" as a way to describe myself for the reasons that Accuser lists. I was raised in the church and had even convinced myself that I believed for many years, even into high school. It began to break down when I noticed that there wasn't really anything there other than me talking to myself in my head, and I realized that "feeling the spirit," "having spirituality" or any description like that was merely a categorization of emotions. There was, for me, belonging to a group, love, and acceptance. But all of those come from human hormones and there is not some invisible "being" that is at our core that slips free when we die and goes... somewhere. That would be "spirituality," and it's not there.

Anything else you're feeling "deep inside" is an emotion. It may be an emotion that has developed a tough, bark-like dogmatic exterior for protection, but that's more a topic of psychology than politics.

I highly recommend the book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens. While I do not agree with his subtitle, I think he makes some very valid arguments for being an atheist. I tend to believe that it's not religion but mankind's use and abuse of religion that has a tendency to "poison everything". I also know many many atheists who are just as closed-minded as the most fundamental Christian/Muslim/Hindu?fill-in your religion of choice here. There are a lot of atheists who try to make people feel like they are stupid for believing in a higher power. What we need to realize is any religion (and I include atheism in this) is simply a vessel we put our personal beliefs in. The trick is staying open enough to realize that other people don't have to believe in the exact same things as we do and that's okay. It's too easy to get frustrated when we don't have all the answers and to just say "well you're ignorant and you don't get it so I'm not going to explain it to you"
Like Tom Robbins says "Only the dead know, and they're not talking,". I think the biggest challenge to all of us in our ever-shrinking world is how to maintain our own beliefs without putting our god-hands all over everyone else (unless of course they want our god-hands all over them). And how to humbly say to those pushing their beliefs (I like the term god-hands, just because it sounds like more of a violation, which, to me, it is) on us "thank you. i respect your opinion, but I do not agree" (keep the "now get the fuck off my doorstep" to yourself unless they cross the line. lol.) It's a tough one, and although we are often made to feel, in this country, like we are not "free" to believe anything other than the mainstream, it's not true. I lived in Wales about 10 years ago and had a very dear friend who grew up in Belfast (a place where, he said "you only discuss politics and religion behind closed doors, and anyone preaching on a street corner (anything aside from the state religion) will be arrested"). This is the western world, and while Belfast has changed, I was shocked to hear this, I had always taken our freedoms for granted. While we may get looked down on or treated differently if we don't follow the mainstream, we don't get arrested for vocalizing it. And there are a lot of places in the world where we would....

If it isn't a thing, then what is it?

It is not synonymous with soul. The soul is the center of self-awareness and sentience. Spirit is the source of will, purpose, and understanding. One may take these as literal metaphysical entities or as allegorical descriptions of brain functions. It doesn't matter as long as one understands spiritual as meaning "driven by spirit."

It says there is no a priori meaning, but we can, and must, create our own meaning. It is very much distinct from nihilism.

In any case, we obviously have a semantic disagreement that isn't worth pursuing any further.

An amorphous, undefined concept. As least, so far as this conversation goes.

Will, purpose and understanding. So... inspiration and knowledge, then?

I never said it was nihilism. But a "higher purpose" isn't one we create by ourselves - if it was, what makes it "higher"? Existentialism allows for a purpose, it doesn't allow for a "higher" purpose.

Purpose is a funny word. Say it a few times, analyze the syllables. Hilarious.

I think our argument is primarily a semantic one. I think the word "spiritual" is pretty useless, because no one's willing to define what they mean when they say it. Instead, people use it as a sort of get out of jail free card.

"I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual." What does that even mean?

You still cling to the idea that the universe was created with you in mind, that some beliefs are justified a priori and require no explanation, that there may be a limit to what we can or should achieve, that the concepts of evidence and logic are inherently flawed, and that there is an objective moral authority in the universe that we can never completely understand, but you're too lazy to go to church?*

*The "you" in this sentence isn't referring to anyone in this thread, nor is it intended to make a statement, merely to ask a question of the hypothetical person claiming spirituality but not religiosity.

As someone who says "I'm not religious but am spiritual" I don't think it means we think (or I should say I, and I think a lot of people may be with me on this) that the world was created with "us" in mind. For me, it's a way to say "I believe in something, that there is some sort of "higher power" for lack of a better term, but I don't subscribe to most conventional religions or what they teach. I know exactly what I believe in. I will explain it to anyone who honestly wants to know. It's a belief I came to on my own and is not conventional. However I am fucking sick of people who say they want to know and then tell me I'm stupid because I believe in something (and this is something A LOT of atheists in particular do, not all but a lot). So my stance is: Listen. Ask questions, but be respectful. No one will ever convince another person to reconsider their beliefs by telling said person they are stupid and there is no evidence supporting what you believe, if you are so sure they are wrong and you are right show them reasonably and gently, don't belittle them....
And some of us don't know how to explain some of our beliefs, some of us are still figuring them out...it doesn't make them any less valid. It may not be rational but that doesn't mean it's not valid and that we shouldn't respect that even if we don't agree.

Duuuuuuuuuuude... (and I mean that)

I smoke a LOT of you-know-what...

...and you just BLEW MY MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIND.

(ps - your hanging italic code almost blew my poooooost lol)

Oh, and, at least as it concerns Sartre, I'd be interested to know exactly what would make anyone believe that the could, and necessarily did, make meaning in his life. I'm pretty sure he died a bitter hateful old man.

*shrug*

Also, maybe I'm being defensive, but am I sniffing a suggestion that atheism is analogous to nihilism on the air?

Hey, Dana Point. My folks have a home there. Great little town. Ever been to the Bon Jour cafe? I think it's near the intersection of PCH and Golden Lantern. Awesome breakfast to be had there.

Anyhow, back to the subject, I can understand why you'd be less than thrilled if someone announced "You are wrong and have no evidence."

I'm not trying to do that here. I'm trying to figure out:
a) What are we talking about?
b) What is the evidence for it?

Certain questions may be uncomfortable, but that's more the fault of the beliefs than it is the fault of the person asking the questions.

I'd like to hear your explanation of your beliefs. I'm not looking to insult them. Honest. However, I will probably ask questions, and some of them might feel uncomfortable to answer.

I happen to be of the beliefs that there is nothing supernatural, everything has a natural explanation, the application of logic to evidence can lead us to better applications of science and ethics, that truth has nothing to fear from inquiry, and that, more often than not, subscribing to ill-defined or unjustified beliefs is a waste of time or even actively harmful to the self or to others.

Many philosophers do not live up to their philosophies. Immanuel Kant was a hateful bigot, even though his ethical philosophy would seem to condemn such sentiments.