From what I gathered from everyone else’s responses this became a religious thread. So I am a little confused on why you said that.
That would be more difficult to discern from bits & pieces quoted out of context so, here's the context restored:
'Since religious adherents are apparently unwilling or unable to resist evangelical posts, (whether under the guise of 'speaking their own mind' or merely interjected those beliefs into a non-religious subject thread), they have no basis for objecting to others posting dissenting views. Simply put; you are as free to post religious beliefs as others are to post opposing viewpoints to those beliefs.'
The reference was to other threads where such interjections of religious beliefs pop-in out-of-the-blue, (signified by the word "or" preceding the 'merely interjected those beliefs into a non-religious subject thread'). The reference was not to this thread, where it was posted. Sorry for any confusion there.
Simply put; you are as free to post religious beliefs as others are to post opposing viewpoints to those beliefs.
Yes, and I was not saying that you couldn’t post your opposing thoughts. Did I?
Sometimes such sentiments are directly-stated and other times, they are not. Again, here's the context of that portion, restored for clarity:
"I feel that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and their reasoning behind them." -- barbme1972
'Indeed, I have specified several times that people are generall free to believe whatever nonsense they wish to believe however, please refrain from misuse of the word "reasoning" in the context of belief; there is no reasoning behind beliefs - that's why they're superstitions and not factual.' -- falcon9
The reference was to the lack of such reasoning behind religious beliefs being presented, (beyond a unreasoned 'faith').
Indeed, I have specified several times that people are general free to believe whatever nonsense they wish to believe however, please refrain from misuse of the word "reasoning" in the context of belief; there is no reasoning behind beliefs - that's why they're superstitions and not factual...
Well, what is your reasoning behind not believing?
That's not how reasoning works; such would proceed from a basis of determining why one does believe something. Is there evidence to support such a belief or, does it rely upon unreasoned faith alone? Your question stems from a logical fallacy, (e.g., suggesting that the burden of proof rests with demonstrating that something _doesn't_ exist; an irrational concept).
What is wrong with having faith in something?
As I've previously stated several times in different threads, those holding irrational superstitious "faith" are free to do so, (but not free to impose them upon others). There's a none-too-subtle difference between "faith" and mundane 'confidence'; consider it if you will.
Is there anything that you have faith in, a loved one perhaps?
No, I have _confidence_ in certain things which have previously demonstrated that such confidence is justified, (nominally, by extant evidence that continued confidence is justified, or not - which would result in a lack of confidence in that instance). Some people might characterize confidence as a 'belief' however, I apply it as having a justifiable/evidentiary trust, (rather than an unjustified 'hope', 'faith', or 'belief' which lacks evidentiary justification). I do not, therefore, apply "faith" to any aspect of my life.
And you say that you don’t adhere to religious beliefs, your atheist then.
My atheist what? Oh, you meant "you're", (you are), right? Under the standard dictionary definitions, the simple answer is no, I'm not an "atheist". I'm non-religious and reject unreasoned religious superstitions though. Any discussion of such questions should be moved to the debate+discuss subforum, (d+d).
Why are you an atheist? What has caused you to not want to belief in God, Heaven, the Holy Spirit?
As I stated, those are contentious d+d questions. Start a new thread there and ask again; I do respond, (ask anyone).