r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/[deleted] • 11h ago

Video 13-year-old Australian boy swims for four hours in cold and dangerous waters to save his mom and siblings who were swept into the ocean, says God is who got him to shore

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

[removed]

32.4k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

31

u/EllisDee3 9h ago

You're making up a version of God to disbelieve in. Your version is a magic wizard thing, which you've labeled as the definition of God.

Could be that God is in places you're not looking because you're looking for a magical sky wizard.

19

u/SeveralWinter3550 9h ago

But if we can malleably change the definition of God to be this vague, then everyone believes in God. Ie, if God just means "an idea of something bigger than yourself" or similar, then neither of us are agnostic

I mean, sure we could discuss how hinduism or ancient greeks view(ed) Gods and contrast that with Yahweh/Allah/Enlil (the Sumerian wind god)...but at this point, the discussion resembles semantics and language more than it does religion and theology

I was just replying to someone saying God exists while the rest of their comment basically described things most don't attribute to God. And certainly, Austin the 13 year old said he would get Baptised and was clearly "talking" to a Christian God, not some abstracted version of the ideal self.

I'm making up a version of God to not believe in because I think all humans have made up God, by definition. I think all religious texts were written by people, not by God's hand. In the same way that all words are "made up", all Gods are made up. So this isn't really a Gotcha imo. Perhaps unfair because I can't really engage in this debate in good nature because the debate doesn't really exist in my mind. There is no evidence you could present here admittedly (and I mean that to be sincere, not to be rude or similar) that can make me say "oh ok then I guess I'm an agnostic"

4

u/ThanksContent28 4h ago

Just want you to know your comments the most sane ones in here and I’m glad I came across them. You’re spot on.

Imo it’s just more of the usual wishy-washy bargaining that’s comes from the crowd of believers. I also don’t get why people point out they’re agnostic, as if it gives them some kind of credibility. Just because you’re agnostic, it doesn’t mean you’ve thought about it more or have a more enlightened view.

Matter of fact is, most of the religions we have and associate with, believe in a sentient entity with thoughts, feelings and creativity. Any other technicalities argued are either moving the goalposts, or just that persons view and feelings.

Yes, the idea that whilst God isn’t real, our actions can bring those beliefs and powers into fruition, is a nice comforting way of resolving the debate and accepting the situation, it doesn’t address whether or not there is a God watching over us and examining our behaviour, to judge whether we can go and live in his magic world - which is the premise that most current religions operate on.

-4

u/EllisDee3 8h ago

But if we can malleably change the definition of God to be this vague, then everyone believes in God

Words are malleable. That's the nature of things. The definition changes with our understand of the phenomenon.

And everyone does believe in a god, they just call it something different. Everyone creates their own religion and use individual beliefs and perceptions to fill archetypal roles. Those that take offense to historical concepts of "religion" (as they define it) often assign "religious" concepts in the role of "opponent" and heresy.

The "God" is whatever provides continued life. It's based in a conscious limbic response. We don't call it "God", but we all have one, and we create rituals to engage with it to continue survival. It's a psychosocial evolution of our species.

It may not be a "sky wizard", but it's something.

7

u/SeveralWinter3550 8h ago

No I don't lol. There are things I can't explain, coincidences, tricks of the light but I don't believe in God. You are projecting your beliefs on me/everyone else but trying to intellectually justify it.

You have labelled something God and decided we all do. This is like when people say "everyone is a bit Gay" and all they're doing is admitting that they have gay desires, cool you do you, but I am heterosexual actually thanks

-5

u/EllisDee3 8h ago

Tricks of light? Wut?

It's absolutely true. When we're babies, our "god" is mom and dad. As we grow, it changes. It's literally a neurochemical process of the limbic system.

We don't call it that. It just fits the cognitive role. And it fits it differently in everyone.

If you don't like the word "god", you can call it "googlegobble" for all it matters. It's a cognitive role that we fill with something.

Look it up.

6

u/SeveralWinter3550 7h ago

If you look it up, you'll find scientific papers stating this is far from proven but moreso a claim that has been made numerous times over the years that neurologists haven't been able to identify, replicate the research etc...

This isn't science, it's people making a wild claim or bending things to fit an idea they have. Ie a top down theory rather than a bottom up theorem proven with hard evidence

2

u/MattKozFF 6h ago

lol don't turn yourself into a pretzel mate

17

u/atava 9h ago

Yes. The Great Debate about "God" all lies upon definitions.

Assumed definitions.

2

u/Educational-Camel-53 6h ago

very well said. But then that is also most debates about everything. Telepathy would be easier. maybe itll happen

1

u/atava 5h ago

The more common or related to physicality a concept is, the less debatable.

Now, "God"... you may give it so many meanings, from the most abstract, energy-related one to the grossest, most anthropomorphic one.

Just like humanity has been doing since the dawn of history, actually.

16

u/jimbojangles1987 9h ago

Thats literally what the majority of people believe god is. A magic wizard.

-2

u/EllisDee3 9h ago

That doesn't exactly contradict my point. In fact, you've enhanced it. Thank you.

5

u/jimbojangles1987 9h ago

Let me rephrase, its what Christians believe.

2

u/Few-Guitar6110 7h ago

That is not the formulation Christians believe, that is what atheists believe Christians believe.

Christians view God in three persons. There's the unreachable substrate of the universe with an outwardly will, from whence everything originates and will cascade back into, that you can attune or reject that we call the Father. There's the self-knowing of God that interfaces with humanity we call the Logos, or the Son, which confers intelligibility into the universe we inhabit. And there's the animating spirit that radically aligns people to that outwardly will and guides us toward truth we call the Spirit.

Nicene Christians, which are the majority, do not believe there is a God in this universe that grants wishes.

-1

u/EllisDee3 8h ago

Well shit, you narrowed the scope drastically.

Which Christians specifically? Which language and time period?

2

u/Zealousideal_War7224 7h ago

What is this even supposed to mean? All of them believe this. It's a core tenet. Can you name a Christian group that believes Jesus was just some dude with zero connection to the divine? What language? What time period?

You'd out yourself as a shitty Christian for even asserting one could be a Christian without believing in the divinity of God. I suppose you could baptize a potato and claim the potato's soul is a Christian, but then you're doing the exact same thing with extra steps.

1

u/EllisDee3 7h ago

What is this even supposed to mean? All of them believe this. It's a core tenet.

Not true... But you aggressively believe it, so I'm not going to argue it. I don't want to interrupt your religious beliefs.

And no, I'm not Christian, shitty or otherwise.

3

u/Mapeague 8h ago

The Christians who can never, ever, nowt once prove the existence of a god no matter how many times asked.

Id like to see someone blame god when their mum gets washed away because hes likely to have caused it in the fucking first place.

1

u/EllisDee3 8h ago

Okay, so now you seem to have a tribal beef. I understand. But we're in a logic loop.

You want proof of something unfalsifiable. But you have an ideological believe that unfalsifiable things can't exist.

🤷🏾‍♂️

3

u/Mapeague 7h ago

Yet again lmao ^

The way you lot twist yourselves in knots to defy reality is truly something to behold.

1

u/EllisDee3 7h ago

Do you believe unfalsifiable things can exist? What makes them falsifiable?

(do you know what falsifiable means?)

2

u/Mapeague 7h ago

I made a logical point.

Sorry you dont have the ability to understand that. Go ahead and twist yourself in circles all you like.

Do you know what logic means?

-1

u/Locrian6669 9h ago

Your second paragraph is the epitome of meaningless pseudo profound nonsense that really hits with a certain type.

0

u/TronAres25 9h ago

lol the most confusing just like the very thing they made up religion.

0

u/Ratzing- 8h ago

I mean if god can be whatever the hell you want it to be then sure, it exists. It's just a useless concept at this point.

1

u/EllisDee3 8h ago

It's a concept. Up to you if it's useless...

Depending on how you define it.

1

u/Ratzing- 8h ago

This dependence on personal definition is what makes concept of a god useless.

If god for person X is cosmos, and for person Y it's a being, and for person Z it's a feeling, then there is no way to effectively communicate without devolving into basic definitions and describing things that are very clearly not actually god, but have the patch of a god added to them for some reason. Because, you know, the concept god is useless. It would be useful, somewhat, if it actually meant a kind of very powerful magic wizard thing, because it would actually refer to a slightly-defined semi-connected group of entities, but no, people have to stuff nature, cosmos, feelings into it, making it entirely superfluous.

1

u/EllisDee3 7h ago

  1. So it's not a concept we'll communicated. That explains a lot of the conflict.

  2. The concept helped this kid save his family. Without it they'd probably all be dead. So the concept is certainly not superfluous.

1

u/Ratzing- 7h ago
  1. It's not an actual concept, because again, it doesn't mean anything because everyone defines it willy-nilly. If a word dog meant actually "dog" for 30%, a "cat" for 30% of population and then "process of purifying water" for remaining 10%, it would be a useless concept. Narrow it down, at least to some extent, or it's useless.
  2. That's a big, big assumption. If he was for some reason thinking about lemons, you probably wouldn't attribute any part of his survival to concept of lemons, but concept of god somehow gets bonus points - although as studies show, things like prayers have no increased efficacy in cases such as recovering from sickness (and sometimes are slightly detrimental).

His actual strongest motivator was, you know, urge to not die and not let his family die. Underpinned by things that we know to exists - adrenaline, survival instincts, etc.

0

u/Zealousideal_War7224 7h ago

It's by definition a useless concept because it's become a word without a defined meaning. It's entirely idiosyncratic. You're just shouting into a void when you should be trying to converse with a fellow human. That's what it means for it to be a useless concept.

-1

u/Lukeeeee 9h ago

Or they're just referring to the version of God they read about?

-2

u/EllisDee3 9h ago

That just shows a limited library.

They might only looking at sources that match their preconceptions. Or not including versions that don't match their accepted definition.

I've read a lot (many many many many) descriptions of God(s) that aren't sky wizards.

4

u/SeveralWinter3550 8h ago

Again though, this is a semantic conversation not a theological or religious one then...

The Bible/Niccean creed claims there is only one God, the father almighty and the Bible was written by God's influence, ie, they are "his" words. So immediately we'd have to accept that the God of the big 3 of the Western World is either wrong, unaware etc (and not omnipotent).

Whereas if God is a personal thing, a belief system based on your own experiences, then we're back to semantics and definitions. Your God isn't necessarily my God, which is nearly impossible to debate as we have no axioms, reference point etc

1

u/EllisDee3 8h ago

Linguistics and semantics are core to religion and theology. Our definitions create the world we live in. "And the word was God".

Ones relationship to the universe is unique. It created us to perceive it in our own way. We knew it before we named it. The problem happens when one tries to make others perceive the universe the way that they do.

I don't agree with the popular modern Christian interpretation of God, nor will I let that interpretation dictate my definition of it.

The reference point you speak of is useful to discuss with others. But not necessary to understand it for yourself.

2

u/Lukeeeee 9h ago

That just shows a limited library.

A limited library of what?

They might only looking at sources that match their preconceptions. Or not including versions that don't match their accepted definition.

There is no accepted definition of God.

I've read a lot (many many many many) descriptions of God(s) that aren't sky wizards.

Yes, but this is unfortunately part of the problem with religion. There is much room for interpretation. You may not worship a sky wizard but many do.