My beliefs are first based on my own experiences
Which are anecdotal and subject to confirmation bias.
they are then reinforced/confirmed through cross examination by many sources that correlate with the nature of spirituality.
Oddly most spiritual sources do not agree with each other. You can point out how people all over the world believe in spirituality but it rather undermines your position that so many of them claim that all the others must be necessarily incorrect in their beliefs. Just as an example many Christians claim that belief in Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven and you disagree. You CANNOT both be right but you could both be mistaken. Since the "evidence" for both claims is anecdotal in nature how do I as a third party determine which of you is correct if indeed you are not both simply wrong?
One has to eventually look at how vast an arena of knowledge, information and experience spirituality really is,
It really is thousands of different non-compatible beliefs mostly based on old stories written/told by humans with a limited understanding of science mathematics and medicine.
the numbers involved
Argument ad populum
and the science behind it
Science has different goals and methods than spirituality. For example spirituality depends on anecdotal testimony as "evidence" while science dismisses anecdotal testimony as irrelevant and unreliable. Please do not falsely conflate the two.
I mean it should be obvious something is going on more than peoples imaginations running wild.
What precisely makes this obvious? Are you certain that this is not just another argument ad populum?
I am however irritated I spent the time to clearly cover your concerns only to be blown off for no real reason.
My intention is not to annoy but you have not offered any rational that logically explains why a Muslim who believes that you are destined for eternal torment for rejecting the islam as the exclusive correct path to understanding spirituality is incorrect but your belief that islam is just one of many sources of spiritual knowledge is correct. In fact if we eliminate any source which specifically claims that your idea of spirituality is incorrect your "evidence" becomes rather more sparse. Is there some reason you feel that he testimony of someone who specifically disagrees with you should or even could act as evidence of your position.
you could have argued anything you thought didn't sound right
I am arguing that the many different and mutually exclusive claims made by various theists and spiritually inclined person's do not support each other's claim nor yours and also that the number of people who believe something the age of the belief and the fervency with which it is believed are irrelevant to the truth of the claim.
Is there any reason why I should ever participate in your topics in the future?
Only you can answer this question but I will say that your chances of convincing me of the truth of your claim are fairly low unless you adopt my standard of evidence at least for the purposes of our conversations. If our positions were reversed and you required a more stringent standard for what constitutes sufficient evidence I would not be obligated to adopt your standard in order to justify my own beliefs but it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to lower your standard and be offended when you do not and as a consequence remain unconvinced.
If this is what you are referring to below that I didn't "answer"......
If that is your belief how do you know that other religions are wrong for claiming to be exclusively right?
This is exactly what I am referring to.
First I need to see the claim before I address that claim.
I have offered two examples (christian and islamic doctrine claim to br exclusively correct in a way that directly contradicts any imnist claims) but they are hardly the only possible examples. Which would you like to address first?
Not all religions claim to be exclusively right Secular, that's more the followers so this is not really applicable.
I never claimed that they were. I try to avoid such blanket statement instead preferring words like some or many to words like all and every. This does not resolve the problem that the many religions Which do claim to have a monopoly in spiritual truth present to your argument.
it's the people that follow their religions making those claims not the sources themselves.
If anecdotal testimony is sufficient to support belief them the claims of the people who follow religions is a source. If not then you have nothing but old stories written/told by humans with a limited understanding of science mathematics and medicine.