"-Zachary-" wrote:This is a really bad analogy because it's not dealing with the existence or non-existence of something which is the context I was using it in.
I was replying to ''no one seeks to prove a negative' in general.
The logic is is that the argument of "You can't prove that God doesn't exist, therefore he exists" is faulty.
I agree, I don't expect anyone to believe because of this.
What? No, I'm sure you have plenty of reasons. It's just that all of those reasons are founded in either delusion, ignorance, or faith (or a mixture). None of which actually hold up when investigating reality.
Maybe I should have wrote valid reasons then. This is why I mentioned the fact that you don't know what are the arguments of God existence from an Islamic perspective.
Yes. The main difference between freethinking and religion is that one actually changes and doesn't claim to have absolute answers. If we find that blowing yourself up in the name of Allah is actually the best for overall human wellness, then I'm all for it. But at the moment, that hasn't made itself very clear in regards to being a positive thing.
So overall human wellness is attached to having the most positive physical results from actions? If it did then that action is ethical, if it didn't then it's unethical? If so, wouldn't the only way for ethics to change is by what considered 'overall human wellness' to change?
If someone blew himself up, only killing himself, how is that not positive in general for overall human wellness?
My opinions is right has the possibility of being wrong, and your opinion is wrong has the possibility of being right.