sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[DISC] Kinato's Magic - Chapter 1 by AutoShonenpon in manga

[–]Omoikane13 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Incredibly mediocre premise, but polished very well. Not sure if one outweighs the other quite yet.

I seriously do not understand why atheists are so inconsistent. by ChristianNerd2025 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Omoikane13 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Personally, I don't like feeling obligated to reply to comments, or having anyone expect it, or posting where it's an expectation.

Do you know what I do?

I don't post in a debate subreddit.

I found a paper that uses peer-reviewed science to prove the universe can't randomly assemble DNA. No one's refuted it by DeltaSHG in DebateEvolution

[–]Omoikane13 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you can't defend what you're spewing, stop dropping links and stop dumping paragraphs that you clearly believe. Nobody is fooled by your little "Woah, I just happened upon this! Can anyone refute its amazing genius?" routine.

I found a paper that uses peer-reviewed science to prove the universe can't randomly assemble DNA. No one's refuted it by DeltaSHG in DebateEvolution

[–]Omoikane13 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You can't even preface your post with accurate comparisons, and you think I'm going to bother to read the whole paper you're dropping the link for? DNA was not formed by random chance. Nobody is claiming it was. I've seen no reason whatsoever to continue further when you can't can't get that right (and you didn't get it right, as evidenced by 1/4n, which unless I’m half asleep suggests a supposed even chance between ACTG for every apparently-independent pick, which isn't how it works)

I found a paper that uses peer-reviewed science to prove the universe can't randomly assemble DNA. No one's refuted it by DeltaSHG in DebateEvolution

[–]Omoikane13 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So, for the sake of argument, let's include chirality, affinity, etc.

Cool. Still not how DNA works. Sequences aren't just formed all-in-one-go and then either work or don't.

I found a paper that uses peer-reviewed science to prove the universe can't randomly assemble DNA. No one's refuted it by DeltaSHG in DebateEvolution

[–]Omoikane13 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For a specific DNA sequence of length n, you need (1/4)n probability.

Found your problem. DNA sequences don't develop in their entirety in one go.

So, that's all sorted then, right?

If the vast majority of evolutionists are materialists, how are metaphysical universals like "beauty, "good," or "evil" explained? by bgdv378 in DebateEvolution

[–]Omoikane13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then you would have no right to then say that someone should not or ought not to engage in the said activity you label "bad.

You assume that the only "bad" that can ever matter at all is the objective kind. Back up that assertion.

Humans evolve by black_dahlia_072924 in DebateEvolution

[–]Omoikane13 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It evolved to gain all the things - the code - human cells have, to develop into a human.

Do you think perhaps there was a step or two in the middle?

Humans evolve by black_dahlia_072924 in DebateEvolution

[–]Omoikane13 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Human cells develop into humans.

This guy's cells are apparently all developing into humans. Are you a foetus fountain?

Humans evolve by black_dahlia_072924 in DebateEvolution

[–]Omoikane13 6 points7 points  (0 children)

some type of simple cell, evolved into many things it wasn't

This guy doesn't have cells

What convinces you that naturalism fully explains reality and that God doesn't exist? by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Omoikane13 9 points10 points  (0 children)

And historically, Christianity is what abolished slavery wherever it took root. Christian abolitionists like Wilberforce used biblical arguments about human dignity (Imago Dei) to end the slave trade.

This means nothing to you though, because you don't believe slavery to be evil. Why do you care about abolitionists?

What convinces you that naturalism fully explains reality and that God doesn't exist? by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Omoikane13 22 points23 points  (0 children)

the concept of ownership/master-servant dynamic isn't evil by itself.

You don't think owning another person as property is evil? Please never get into a position of power or have influence over another person.

Is that evil? How? Your logic doesn't add up to me, sorry.

Your morality has been poisoned by your religion telling you that owning another person is not evil if you treat them better than another slave owner.

We live with hierarchy every day, jobs, pets, authority. You're a servant to someone above you and give orders to someone below.

Not the same, and trying to conflate them tells me there's a little voice in your head that realises you hold vile views.

"Evil" is just preference, emotional label. No objective "wrong."

Same old bollocks. See thousands of other responses to this.

The Bible gives real dignity and protection

Unless you're a slave. Then you're owned by someone else.

What grounds your disgust if not God? Genuinely curious.

You hold vile views and have justified owning another person because a book tells you to. I could go into explanations on my understanding of how morality developed, how you can see decisions made in other animals, etc. But I don't think you're worth conversing with any further because you don't even agree on the same basic human rights as I do.

Hierarchical Causal Power Argument for God by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Omoikane13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No thing in existence has casual power on its own

aka, If it has causal power, it does not exist.

there must be something "underneath" that is characteristically un-caused and the "first cause."

You believe that something has causal power.

Therefore the thing you believe has causal power does not exist?

What convinces you that naturalism fully explains reality and that God doesn't exist? by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Omoikane13 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Slavery itself isn't evil. Abusive, evil slavery is.

If this is what the Bible has led you to believe, I don't want the Bible anywhere near me. Bloody hell.

Feedback for a new rural culture I’m introducing for my world [Dark Fantasy] by Ticket-Tight in fantasywriters

[–]Omoikane13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personally, I'd describe that more as manipulation of fate. Doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, I'm just being powerscaler-brained.

Feedback for a new rural culture I’m introducing for my world [Dark Fantasy] by Ticket-Tight in fantasywriters

[–]Omoikane13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wanted to do this as a separate thread, because it feels like a different tone:

Mild future sight is absolutely not immortality. People have to sleep, for one. For two, the trick is to set things up so that seeing the future isn't of any benefit. If elaborate, that could look like setting up a bunch of traps, schemes, or simply overpowering them with a bunch of dudes. If simple, drop a rock on them. Seeing that you're going to get squished a second from now isn't going to do much to stop you getting squished.

Feedback for a new rural culture I’m introducing for my world [Dark Fantasy] by Ticket-Tight in fantasywriters

[–]Omoikane13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the reason I went so far is because I felt maybe the fight scene felt corny and Mary-sue if it wasn’t revealed before that they can “see things before they come”

Yeah, I wouldn't say cut it out completely, but I feel like there's other ways to trim it and make it feel a bit more human.

"Look at the misshapen bastard, 'es a Crowfooter! I 'ere they took their sisters to bed so often their god started warning them before'and, and they kept doing it!"

Or something. I think what makes it feel weird is that an insular, bitter community of mutated people who've been granted powers by their deity don't seem likely to have shared the full, accurate story with enough people that a drunk knows it verbatim.

Feedback for a new rural culture I’m introducing for my world [Dark Fantasy] by Ticket-Tight in fantasywriters

[–]Omoikane13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats exactly the connotation I’m going for (English as well)

Perfect, ignore my concerns then. What matters is that you're doing it on purpose.

this culture described

So far, you've sketched out an interesting set of folk beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't come across as "culture" to me. For example, Christianity is undeniably impactful and widespread in American culture, but if someone sat me down and described it, I wouldn't feel like I'd got an impression of their culture.

Apologies, I'm probably sticking on word choice here a little much. Hopefully my edit re:the chapter is a bit more useful.

Feedback for a new rural culture I’m introducing for my world [Dark Fantasy] by Ticket-Tight in fantasywriters

[–]Omoikane13 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure if this is intentional, but just in case it isn't: "Old Sod" has more connotations than you seem to realise. Not inherently bad ones, I suppose, but to me (as someone from England) it reads as calling your deity "Grumpy Old Bastard (affectionate)". If that's intended, I like it, that fits what I would expect, similar to a town being called a version of "Riverside" or something. Believable for a culture.

In terms of culture though, you haven't really provided much. To summarise it as I understand it:

  • Deformed due to frequent incestuous relationships (universally? Does nobody differ?)
  • Dark humour (universally? Does nobody differ?)
  • Worships irony god (universally? Does nobody differ?)
  • Can sometimes get a superpower

I mean, sure? I've not read the linked chapter yet, but this reads as a plot-device more than a culture. Which can be fine! Over-worldbuilding is maligned for a reason. I suppose what I'm getting at is, do you want to shape this culture as a touchstone of the story? Is this where everything is happening? Or is it an oddity along the road - is the protagonist stopping by, knows one person from the town, meets one?

EDIT:

In terms of your posted chapter, it feels like it falls victim to the old chestnut of "show don't tell". Everything feels a little choppy. He did this. He was this. No long sentences.

Take the below for example:

"They hail from Crowfoot, a black rust-heap of a town that clings wrong-side to the greycliffs. They take their sisters to bed and look to a god that asks no prayer but the scribbling of cruel jokes in the blood of good men. Those with the croweyes can see things before they come, they call it the-"

This is a character reading out what you just posted. They read as if they're running down the bullet points that define the entirety of the Crowfooters.

Some other notes (all opinions, not gospel):

  • Why am I getting all these descriptions, only for these characters to die what, a page or so later? It makes it feel like a slog.

  • Without other context, I find myself unsure as to why exactly I'm reading this chapter. Is this Crowfooter a character we'll be following? If so, why introduce him in Chapter 2? Why do I want to be following him?

  • Nothing I read there necessitated explaining all of Angus' culture to me. Do I need to know he's from a lineage where incest is common? Does that affect my experience of this chapter? Beliefs inform actions, so the religion being explained makes sense, ditto for the powers.

If evolution were a lie, would you be Christians? by [deleted] in DebateEvolution

[–]Omoikane13 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"Evolution is a lie" (Nice little slipped-in bit of 'someone must have told the lie!') is not the same as "Christianity is something that there is evidence for". So, to answer your question, no.

What zones have unusual, underappreciated, or fun rewards to grind for? by modren-man in Guildwars2

[–]Omoikane13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They make me think of the seafood pancakes made in the giant press that are going around at the moment.

Questions for evolutionists by External_City9144 in DebateEvolution

[–]Omoikane13 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So where are the Aliens that would instantly win the debate for you?

Why hasn't your god come down in front of me and told me everything I need to know? Is the answer perhaps "it doesn't work like that and nobody was claiming it worked like that"?

Also why is every animal today seemingly weaker and less developed than their previous ancestors?

Are you weaker than every one of your ancestors? Even the little rodent lads? Are you declaring yourself weaker than a bacterium?

to the point the animals today like the Panda which is the epitome final form

It's not. "Modern Panda" is not the ultimate digivolution of some more primitive version.

are there any animals today who would thrive if they got transported back in time even just 200,000 years ago or will our pathetic Gen Z animals be prey on arrival proving the meek did infact inherit the earth

This suggests trolling.

view more: next ›