Where has anyone in this thread advanced their feelings as an argument?
That was a typo on my part, as it should have read "feeling." Before you again try to misconstrue my argument, let me point out that I didn't accuse anyone here specifically of saying their argument rested on feelings or a feeling. But I stand my statement, however poorly worded, because I've heard dozens and dozens of arguments from theists that boil down to their
feeling that God exists. I believe you even said as much by calling it a sensory experience.
As for the burden of proof: there is certainly a burden of proof on any positive claim. The problem is with suggesting that all claims are to be validated in identical (and exclusively empirical) ways. I don't see how this withstands scrutiny, given that it dismisses all sorts of logical, philoshopical, and even some mathematical proofs, some of which are crucial to the scientific process itself. The
article I quoted earlier goes into a little more detail.
I will check out the article at some point, but in fact I've never stated that only empirical evidence would suffice to prove a god. As it happens, I don't think a logical argument, a philosophical argument, or a mathematical proof for the existence of a god on its own would be sufficient, and certainly all of those I've encountered I find deeply flawed and unconvincing. (And if there are more than what I've encountered, then why are the theists hiding them?)
Hmmmm, I don't think I said this. An atheist remaining unconvinced in general may or may not be reasonable. It's specific arguments that I'm saying aren't reasonable.
You don't think you said what? I'm confused. And by "specific arguments" what are you referring? Why does an atheist have to make a specific argument at all? Why is "you haven't presented me with good enough evidence" good enough, given that the atheist making no positive claims is under no burden to provide anything?
Likewise. But when I look for compelling reasons, I'm not going to a priori demand only reasons that are logically inconsistent with the claim.
"Logically inconsistent with the claim"? I don't understand.
I'm not sure what you've heard, then, because the argument in question doesn't require Christianity.
Of course the argument doesn't
require Christianity. I didn't say it did. Only that most of those presenting the argument are coming from a Christian worldview. It doesn't matter, because I'm not going to buy into the idea that human morality is somehow an objective fact of the universe. In my original post, I said I'd never heard objective morality defined, and by that I mean I've never heard a single objective moral imperative that didn't have tons of gray area and a multitude of exceptions. Murder, or the taking of another's life, would seem an easy choice, only clearly there are gray areas and exceptions, and the Bible is full of killings approved of and even commanded by God that can easily be labeled murder. So in other words, how does the religious person base his morals from some objective standard when he has nothing to refer back that can constitute the one and only Objective Morality? And if you want to avoid specifying Christianity, then how does a higher power necessitate objective morality, when perhaps there is a God and it couldn't care less about what we consider moral or not. Or do you want to argue that a higher power is instilling in us a moral sense? Because that argument is fraught with problems, given that even among Christians you can't come to a consensus of absolute morals.