I guess that was a pretty provocative statement. I mean that spirituality does not exist in a vacuum; it is manifested in concrete acts and practices. To me, saying that you are spiritual but not religious is like saying that you are healthy but have no concern about diet and exercise.

Saying to someone that "I am not sure you understand at all" because you don't understand what they are saying is not so helpful either.

huh? Not sure what you are referring to, when you say "spirituality", but "general and boring" is a pretty sweeping conclusion to make about something I am not sure you understand at all.

Science is impossible without imagination. What does an atom really look like? How do we convey the "truth" without the use of imagination?

I think imagination plays a very big role in science. But I am not a strict materialist.

Atheists and scientific materialists demand of believers the same rigorous examination and testing that they would expect of any scientific hypothesis. But believers can only offer stories and theories based on nothing but imagination.

Recommended reading: "God: the Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger

I agree religion and science have a lot in common, but thats no different from art and religion, entertainment and religion, art and science.

All are inherently different of course. Those distinctions have been articulated for hundreds of years and will continue. I believe its the distinctions that give rise to exploration and appreciation rather than focusing on the commonality.

One of the things I find interesting though is how the common person, who is neither scientist or religious priest, will unwittingly raise science and scientist to the roles and stature normally held by religion and priest. So many people I run into seem to think that somehow science is "the truth" and "unchanging." They don't seem to understand that science "tells a story" and will happily change it when a better one that makes more sense comes along. They also don't often realize that because they are not scientists themselves, they have to take the words of scientists as a form of gospel, something which they often criticize religious people for doing with their religious leaders.

Nobody likes it when I try to explain to them, in my mind, that science and religion have more in common than they are willing to realize. They always come back to "science is based on fact" when it is most often based on theory, which is continually being revamped.