Again, an interesting and weird argument, and not the first I have heard it. But the argument seems to have missed my original point, and I have discussed it already, that the experience I am discussing isn't actually an emotion, emotion is a reaction to the experience. The experience defies my ability to explain, but it isn't emotion. The closest I can was in passing on John Wright's explanation of his experience where in he stated it was "like" falling in love. Whether love is purely an emotion is debatable, and I think those who assert it would have a hard time justifying it, since anyone who has experienced love knows intimately that it can illicit any emotion, indicating it is something more fundamental that we have only borrowed linguistically and employed to describe the better emotions attributed to love.
If you love someone is it subjective? You can certainly claim to love someone and not really love them. But that is kind of along the same point of the inexplicable nature of the faith experience. The experience is closest, in words, to falling in love. But I think that, while it comes closest, it is only "like" falling in love, but it is something noticeably different than that. More complex, less connected to language.
You'd have to experience it. As I think I have been clear, my experience has proven it to me, but it is a personal experience so I really can't share it with you beyond words, and words are limiting.
Again, from my previously stated argument, I drifted away from my youthful faith because my faith as a child had no ability to differentiate God and Santa Clause, or the Boogey Man and you point out. It was a childish understanding of God. What I experienced in my mid twenties, and have been following ever sense is not that kind of faith.
I'm not asking anyone to do anything with my statements. I'm just stating them.