[Islamic] Rational Thinking - an introduction

[knowthetruth1492]

Religion is irrational. To believe without evidence is very very irrational.

[pmoyer50]

To say that to believe in islam is rational thinking you are one deluded dude, dude. What is rational about following a cult founded by a man who led a band of marauding thieves in the desert? He announced to the world that he is the prophet. The world certainly didn't. This video is pure hyperbole at the most. Get a life and find Jesus and then you will truly find God.

[Houshalter]

Less wrong. It's a website about rationality. Look it up, it's definitly worth your time. It's not even about religious issues.

[l337pwnage]

Might wanna look up infinite regression

And

/watch?v=pveGeGjyMZM

[321lawc]

Religion is not rational and god does not exist

[sorata78]

@321lawc

your comment is irrational and you do not exist

[Virtualwallvirus]

Your right that is rational thinking. For you to believe that you had to make the rational choice so there u go. You proved it.

[sigula]

Rational thinking: god created different landscapes, differents climates, differents MENTALITIES, yes as the matter of the fact god does not want one way one code to be follow. it's on yer own statement RATIONAL THINKING god's logic, gods created my brain and so I believe in what Iwant... isn't it? hence qu'ran is wrong, there you go your rational thinking.

[NargisYahya]

you talk about things you don't know..

God doesn't exist and we're exist by nature,,,

wow so logic...

it can only become logic if you substitute the word nature by God. not the contrary..

we have spirit (metaphysical things) because there is the metaphysical thing gives it to us.

evolution can only be logic if now we're nonliving things

peace!! :)

[wepimpspaki]

nice video I AGREE

[sosly211]

in this video you go on about not making assumptions and the funny thing is in order to believe in any faith (including islam) one must assume that the beliefs involved (in religion) are true because ....well i've never met any one who could prove beond a shadow of a doubt that the religion in question is the absolute truth !!! so you should re concider your lesson

[ManifestationOfTruth]

Ultimately it comes down to the concept of God one posits...and if it can be supported that this creator must be something "personal" (no this does not entail the Creator being a man up in the sky, unfortunately most conceive of "God" as being something similar to things existing on our level and plane, something literally spacially or physically "seperate" from the universe). And in response to REALITY...firstly, many of the contributions of Muslim Scientists date back to the Medevial period

[ManifestationOfTruth]

- The Golden Age of Islam, indeed Islam contributed to rational thought extensively, i'll provide you historical sources if you wish, and demonstrate this. Unfortunately there was no "Nobel Prize" in those days, however those findings (taken by the West, just look into all the past and present Imperialistic ideals, and you'll see why and how), formed a foundation of modern Science. As for the rest of your nonsense, none of it complies with the Islamic teachings. [cont]

[ManifestationOfTruth]

Yes, indeed there is much corruption, but you seriously need to investigate into WHY this corruption exists. Islamic socieites under Islams ideology flourished for centuries, unparalleled by numerous other civilizations and socieites. I'm not going to waste my time with you, but watch Zeitgeist Addendum, and The Ring of Powers: Illuminati Bloodlines if you want to understand what i'm blabbing about (unless you already have, in which case you must have not been attentive towards the videos) [cont

[ManifestationOfTruth]

And yes, indeed many Jewish communites have prospered, and have enjoyed affluence. But you need to study the corruption that exists behind much of this, I'm not targeting Judaism (I believe it's concept of God is closer to Islam's, far more than Christianity's), rather the facade of certain so-called Jews (or those with Jewish origins), which mislead MANY. Ex. The Rothschild's etc.

This all ties in with Masonism...Iluminati blah blah...

With Peace

[mediteight]

This seems like a wonderful description of a fun way of thinking - an "intuitive" or maybe "instinctive" way of thinking. However, unless your deciding to randomly switch the meanings of English words, it's perverse to call it "rational" thinking - given that it's the exact opposite. Rational thinking is obviously based on logical reasoning...

[REALITY2point0]

Leaving disease etc aside... Its rather amusing that muslims try and pass off Islam as the "religion of peace" when across the world, the no1 killer of muslims is ironically other muslims...

[peace4universe]

There ARE hypocrites described extensively in Qur'an who give lip-service to religion.

8. And of the people are some who say, "We believe in Allāh and the Last Day," but they are not believers.

9. They [think to] deceive Allāh and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive [it] not.

10. In their hearts is disease, so Allāh has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie.

Holy Qur'an Ch 2

[REALITY2point0]

I agree and it is these very passages from the Quran that are in fact the source of the bloodshed and suffering. The problem is that Muslims will hack each other to pieces arguing over who is the deceiver and who is the true believer. This is the true history and legacy of Islam. The Quran is very obviously just an amateurish plagiarism of the Bible and the Tora which are in their turn also 99.99% pure bullshit. Islam is a malignant cancer of the intellect that blights mankind.

[peace4universe]

There are characteristics of believers and hypocrites described in Qur'an.

Qur'an never said it is a book given to mankind for the first time but it says that it is the book that is given confirming previous revelations. There are differences between Qur'an and the Bible and Torah such that Qur'an is considered original as it is pure revelation but previous books are for references.

[peace4universe]

In fact those who understand Islam have the best knowledge of handling the things intellectually.

Do you get muslims using filthy languages as you are using ?

[REALITY2point0]

No you don't get mulsims using filthy languages, you just get them blowing small children to shreds in crowded markets which by implication then you find much less offensive.

[REALITY2point0]

You're an idiot. The vast majority of the intellectual feats accomplished in the modern world came from the minds of non-muslims. In fact if you examine the Nobel Prizes awarded in sciences, engineering & economics you will find that 23% of these have gone to Ashkenazi Jews (who make up less than 0.02% of the world's population). By contrast less than 1% of the Nobel prizes awarded for intellectually taxing endeavours have gone to Muslims (who make up almost 23%). Islam = mental retardation. lol

[ahmarsidd]

Ahh...when your "arguments" run you in the ground then just resort to ad hominems, assertions, personal attack, tiny bits of facts wrapped up in thick layers of sensationalism. God bless Militant Atheism! :D

[REALITY2point0]

Ahh... when your religious "arguments" run you into the ground then just resort to suicide bombings, beheadings, stonings, "honor" killings & terrorst atrocities all wrapped up in a sickening crust of false piouty and Quranic justification. God bless Militant Islam! :D

[ahmarsidd]

ahhhh...the Militant Atheist world view...Nuclear first strike (Sam Harris), staunch support of premptive war without any solid evidence (Christopher BITCHES, which is very ironic since Militant Atheist "demand" emparical evidence OF devine!), scientific "methodology" to create and classify sub and super human race, shove Atheism down the throat of entire nation state (Stalin, Polpot)...ahhh...I seem to wonder why would anyone want to throw stone at my house while their is made up of glass! :)

[REALITY2point0]

lol Its very hard to take seriously the views of someone who hasn't even mastered the use a simple spell checker. premptive?emparical?devine? lol The only thing more broken than your spelling is your retarded logic and argumentation. But I guess you have to be fairly retarded to want to live your life according to the plagiarised pronouncements of an illiterate medieval desert paedophile like Mohammed. Now run along and spread your message of hate, illiteracy and poor spelling somewhere else :-)

[ahmarsidd]

"Its very hard to take seriously the views of someone [...]" Funny...I had a very similar sentiment when I was posting my comment. I didn't want to pay attention have a second look at my response...I mean hey...why bother?!...I mean i am dealing with deranged Militant Atheist...it would be like trying to feed a dead horse or fuel a vehicle that has already been ruined...go on and follow your fellow Militant Atheist Prophet who believes that random act of kindness is a mere "misfiring"

[REALITY2point0]

Dear Mr premptive, emparical, devine, frankly only a moron would need to look twice to check that they hadn't so laughably misspelled such basic words. Evidently your spelling is as backward as your religion. Why bother you say? Clearly its not a matter of bother to you, just look at all the effort you waste posting endless messages defending your religion of hate, intolerance, misogyny, homophobia and paedophilia. Its obviously not that your not bothered its that your just not very bright. lol

[peace4universe]

219. They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, "In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit." And they ask you what they should spend. Say, "The excess [beyond needs]." Thus Allāh makes clear to you the verses [of revelation] that you might give thought.

Holy Qur'an Chapter 3

Intelligent verse! Isnt it ?Didnt' it OPEN your mind?

[fibe79]

I'm rationally observing what is going on in Islams name YES I do focus on the negative which you people ignore. It's always the muslims who are victims to non-muslims.. I'm rationally looking at what's said in the quran (the negative) and I keep asking my self how this can be worshipped today.

[natdavi]

Yes! logic follows reason, not the other way around. Logic is a tool for rational thinking. We use logic in order to be rational. We don't use reason to be logical.

[avempace000]

>The first argument was logical (freezers in the

>sky).

Actually it was a fallacious argument. Not all ice originates from freezers.

If it is a sound logical argument then it is true. In fact, Reason/Rationality is based on a logical thought process. Refer to my video Re: The Role of Reason and Intellect in Islam where I define Reason. My other video The Intelligence is Rationally Conceivable can be referred to for a more thorough logical argument concerning Intelligence.

[P3X018]

I agree. But logic assumes a certain truth about a premise, set up before determining the validity of a statement. You need to define how you interpret a logically true statement. With deductive logic you assume a certain statement "A => B" to be true, that's your premise. Then if A is true you can logically determine that B must be true. If you know B is true, logically you can't say anything about A, but rationally you sometimes can.

Logic is a subset of rationality, not the other way around.

[nerktord]

Abdulla, out of curiosity, on a economical level with a society under Islam, in which direction would it move towards? a capitalistic one, or socialistic one or other? You seem like somebody who'd know this sort of thing. However, I'm having trouble researching this.

[mujtahid2006]

The answer is 'other'. Please see my video 'Economic system of Islam' (parts 1 and 2) for a quick intro into Islamic economics.

[REALITY2point0]

It is rational to believe that the Universe could have been created by any one of an infinite number of possible forces or events. A rational person would understand that "Allah" (as depicted in the Qur'an) is but one of this infinite number of possible causes. To assume in the light of infinite contrary possibility that Allah must have been the creator of the universe (as Muslims I have met tend to do) is by your own definition... irrational.

[mujtahid2006]

You have made an assumption. You assume that there can be an infinite number of possibilities, whereas there can only be one possibility, once you have discounted anything finite. The one remaining possibility is that the Originator is ONE and infinite (since multiple infinities are mutually exclusive) and this originator itself, possesses infinite possibility (i.e. omnipotency). You can call this whatever you want, but we Muslims use Allah as our preferred naming convention.

[REALITY2point0]

There certainly are an infinite number of possibilities, as to what this infinite event or force might have been. The irrational Islamic assumption that this infinity must certainly be Allah is self evidently absurd. Further, the term "Allah" is not merely a naming convetion, it is a catch all term for an assumption which further encapsulates a long list of additional irrational assumptions about the origins of the universe & its purpose as viewed through the lens of medieval superstition

[P3X018]

The discussion is about causality. There is a cause behind every effect. Hence that leaves 2 possibilities, there have been an infinite regress of events up to this point. Or there is an first cause behind everything.

The first possibility means that existence is infinite, and hence anything (e.g. us) in existence is infinite.

For the second possibility there is a cause behind everything, which is unlike anything in existence.

It is the cause behind this effect we call the creator.

[REALITY2point0]

The discussion, as you rightly suggest was about causality (or more accurately, assumptions of causality) before it was was hijacked by mujtahid's ill-informed suppositions about infinities. Here I note that you have simply reiterated his point about nomenclature. Hence I reiterate, that the muslim "creator", "allah" etc. of the qu'ran is but one (extraordinarily unlikely) possibility among an infinite number of other possibilities accounting for the causation of the Universe which we inhabit.

[P3X018]

Please note, that I'm restricting my discussion about a creator, but not stating anything about this creator. So your referral to "the muslim creator allah" isn't relevant for this discussion. For the moment stick to this topic, if you want to bring up the issue of _who_ this creator is, then that's a different topic.

[ahmarsidd]

I think we are indistinguishably talking and mixing probable and actual infinities.

[REALITY2point0]

Not that your pedantry about infinity actually matters to the substance of the debate, but I may as well point out your glib assumption that "multiple infinities are mutually exclusive". If you care to study Cantorian mathematics, super-symmetry, string theory or indeed Einstein's special theory, you will soon discover that mulitple infinities are a distinct possibility of which there is in fact a far greater likelihood than has ever be demonstrated for the existence of your "Allah".

[P3X018]

Putting the statement "multiple infinities are mutually exclusive" aside, then you seem to mix ideas behind infinities. Sure you can have concepts of infinities, but what we are discussing is about physical infinities in reality, not, say, infinite elements in a set.

Infinities are sometimes used in theoretical physics to make calculations simpler, not that an actual infinity is assumed to exist in nature. Models predicting infinities means that it doesnt describe the system sufficiently.

[REALITY2point0]

Obviously no distinction was drawn between infinities which are conceptual and those which might be tangible. There is a limit to what can be conveyed within the space of a 500 char illustrative reply to a layman. However the possibility of co-existent infinite universes as inferred for instance by quantum theory should certainly not be dismissed with the breathtakingly crass assumption that "Models predicting infinities means that it doesnt describe the system sufficiently"

[P3X018]

The possibility of co-existent infinite universes is more of a philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics, rather than a theoretical prediction. But that aside, there are theories which predict infinities, e.g. GR predicting a universe infinite in extent, if it's open or flat. But such predictions has no chance of being tested experimentally. So unless infinities can be observed in nature such predictions doesn't have more value than theoretical speculations.

[REALITY2point0]

In the early 1900's The Prussian Academy of Sciences chose to overlook the theories of a Swiss physicist on the grounds that his work, though intellectually meritorious could likely never be tested. Like you, they myopically believed that "such predictions has no chance of being tested experimentally". Hence why Germany 25 years later failed to win the race to develop the nuclear bomb which manifestly demonstrated the veracity of the theories and the foolishness of their own myopia.

[REALITY2point0]

You seem to have a rather low regard for things which "has no chance of being tested experimentally." and "unless (it) can be observed in nature such predictions doesn't have more value than theoretical speculations". Suprising then that you have such high esteem for this "Allah" who cannot be "tested experimentally" nor "observed." We agree at least on one thing, which was my original point. ie. that "Allah" (by your own logic) therefore "doesn't have more value than theoretical speculations".

[P3X018]

I'm not talking about predictions of exotic phenomena, but predictions of infinities in nature (hence my referral to the previous sentence by "_Such_ predictions"), which you cannot test for.

The discussion of a higher unlimited power being the cause behind existence, and which (the power) has no cause behind it, has no relation to what can be tested experimentally or not, it is merely about a first cause behind everything, due to nothing in nature being infinite. ...

[P3X018]

But you keep ignoring this and directing the discussion elsewhere. Put aside your knowledge of "the muslim creator allah", and discuss this generally, about a cause behind existence, which is different than anything in it.

[ahmarsidd]

"Obviously no distinction was drawn between infinities which are conceptual and those which might be tangible." If I am not mistaken "tangible" infinities are probable infinities rather than actual.

[ahmarsidd]

[...study Cantorian mathematics...] You got to be kidding...his "theory" is either considered pseudo mathematics or intiuative concept that states about groupings in a SINGLE or set in a given object only A statement if true so it gives very little in way of explaining multiple infinities...so back to my original point...you gotta be kidding!

[lo0lo0007]

yaaaaaaaah snow it's amazing :)

[Virtualwallvirus]

Eventualy your gonna get someoone on here who says something like "Ive seen a snowman being made before therefore i know that the snowman wasnt created by a divine being and that proves theres no god" or something similarly stupid

[mujtahid2006]

True, no matter how clear you make the videos, someone always doesn't pay attention and just shouts 'watchmaker argument! I've seen it all before!..."

[P3X018]

Which means that for a true statement "A implies B" the statement "B implies A" is not necessarily true, hence isn't logical.

Note btw, that all science uses backward logic, the way you used it, to deduce conclusions about a theory (making it more 'probable'). Hence making conclusions on reality.

I'm not sure how you differentiate between rationality and logic. You're still making a statement that has to be within the boundaries of logic, otherwise it wouldn't make sense and would be rejected.

[mujtahid2006]

You have come with an a priori assumption. "Logic = truth" but "If something isn't true" therefore "It isn't logical". Again, your argument is logical, but it's first premise is based upon an assumption. Logic is not truth, it is merely a style of thinking.

I agree with you about science, it is too slow. 'Make assumption, prove it/disprove it", "If false, make another assumption".

[P3X018]

Salam aleikum. Brother, you are stating that your conclusion "there must be a frig in the sky" is logical. It's not, u are using the logic backwards. The logic is, IF there is a frig in the sky, then it can snow, BUT you can't deduce that IF it's snowing then there must be a frig in sky. It's an implication statement in logic, "A implies B". "IF A is true then B is true", that's a true statement, but IF B is true, then you CAN'T deduce that A is true.

[mujtahid2006]

Ws

Logic is based upon building premises. These premises are not always necessarily true. But without deriving thought from reality only, logic can be prone to giving us errors.

Furthermore, your problem with my example is only because it is absurd, yet If I were to say "pregnant women produce babies", "A baby is being born" therefore, "the baby is born of a woman". This is using the same logical path I used, yet you probably wouldn't disagree with it because it makes sense in this case

[DuctTapeMyFace]

Hi there friend, you explain the problem of logical thinking, ergo ice must come from freezers in the sky, then only go on to continue it with we look made, ergo there must be a maker. How are your conclusions any different?

[mujtahid2006]

The first argument was logical (freezers in the sky). The second argument did not make any premises, but instead, rationally tested the posibilities behind the origination of an observed reality.

There are three possible causes to anything that exists:

1) It made itself

2) It is ever existent

3) It was caused by something else

I disproved the first two possibilities for things which are limited in their existence, ergo, they were caused (as this is the only possibility that it is left).

[Cimbolic]

re the three possible causes:

Very clearly stated !

[nadialejandra]

Oooh so you were making videos whilst I was making snow men...thats quite productive mashaAllah...

[786afh]

Scary Music at the end, but I was waiting for such a video. Jazakallah khair.

[mujtahid2006]

It's the music from the film 'the message' - in particular the music played to indicate the presence of the prophet...just so you know :)

[shubzi]

snow!

[easyonetwothree]

mashAllah

[zafthedon]

Salaam

intresting

peace.

[RzaaV2]

Excellent video, this is the type of stuff I like to see.

One comment: is it not like deductive logic then? Where we draw a logical (and inescapable) conclusion from sound premises and not so much apply a specific to a general case or vice versa?

[klashenkoff]

lol@ osama bin snowman

[Achernahr]

Fantastic video brother. You always excel at delivering complex ideas in a simple manner. jazzak Allah khair

[BeMyBro]

great video jazak Allah khair

[ECUGurl]

Did I hear that right? Osama bin Snowman??loool Great video.

[AimiriZ]

Good video, btw, at 00:13 Albaab had 2 As but at 07:10 , Albab had 1 A

[mujtahid2006]

albaab with two A's was only a guide to pronounciation. albab is the romanised transliteration as the arabic only has one alef.

[AimiriZ]

lol that was my "irrational" thinking.

[mujtahid2006]

No bro, that was logical thinking ;)

[floweriepot]

you guys finally got some snow eh!!!

Oh dear, canada made me really sick and tired of snow...no more snow for me...that's IT!!

[mujtahid2006]

Are you going to ban snow in canada? ;)

[floweriepot]

euff i wish!!

[OblivionMon]

It looks beautiful there man. I wish it were snowing where I am. I am a Christian but I always enjoy your videos though. Good job.

[mustafagtgt]

You live in the UK as well? It has not snown like this for over 19 years...its good to see snow in London...over in the Midlands (where I live) the snow was over 6 inches deep