[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/3/ - 3DCG

View post   
File: 40 KB, 126x300, pacifica_by_cristianceron-d61khb0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
351587 No.351587 [Reply] [Original]

How do I get into retopology.
Here is my workflow idea:
I make the sketch in zspheres, then I'll export as obj and sketch again in Blender? using reference.
then I reimport on zbrush and start sculting the normal map.

Then what?

>> No.351591

>>351587
If by "sketch" you mean you're going to re-model in blender then no, don't do that. There are multiple re-topology programs and programs with retopo plugins/modules. Zbrush has retopo, although I wouldn't recommend it. I believe there is also an auto retopo plugin for blender although again, I wouldn't recommend it a least not for deformation specific character topology. Even Maya is finally getting a retopo tool in 2014.
Personally, I use 3DCoat. It has the best and most robust retopo tools I've seen and the program is simple enough to pick up quickly.

My overall workflow is to sculpt a model in Zbrush or Mudbox, making sure I get all the forms in there. For a film level asset, even the details like the intricacies of the ears are important to get in this pass (for games just get the major forms). I then export as an obj and retopo in 3DCoat. For proper topology reference, check out hippydrome.com. I bring that mesh back into my sculpting program and do a high-detail pass getting everything from fingernails to pores and skin folds. From that, I export normal, displacement, and any other maps I need. I take the base mesh into Maya or whatever animation program you're using, and hook up the maps. Viola! A completed asset, ready to be rigged, animated, and rendered.

>> No.351594

>>351591
any good rigger software?

>> No.351595

>>351594
Unfortunately, the current rigging paradigm is all based around hacks. How to make that thing do what you want using the tools you have despite the inherit limitations of the software. Therefore, which program the rig is created in has everything to do with which program it will be animated in. A rig created in maya, can never work (correctly) in blender for example. Even a rig created in a newer version of maya is HELL to get working in the past year's iteration. This is why most studios set up their pipelines around a single version of a single piece of software. So to answer your question, maya and blender are the two best rigging/animation packages readily available. I personally prefer maya, but you may have to get the student version or a cracked version if you dont want to pay a couple grand for a license. But remember, whichever program you chose, you will most likely be forced to stick with throughout the entire project.

>> No.351596

>>351595
>Even a rig created in a newer version of maya is HELL to get working in the past year's iteration. This is why most studios set up their pipelines around a single version of a single piece of software.

wut

>So to answer your question, maya and blender are the two best rigging/animation packages readily available

that would be maya and houdini

>> No.351597

>>351595
how bout the animation specialist software from autodesk?

>> No.351598

>>351597
sorry, I mean motion builder.

>> No.351600

>>351595
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZjaXTV7UVY
you can rig in maya then send to motion builder.
>lel.

>> No.351609

>>351591
>Zbrush has retopo, although I wouldn't recommend it.
>Personally, I use 3DCoat.

Bro, it's the exact same shit. You lay down guide curves to define how you want the edgeflow to go, giving you nice deformable topology. And on top of that, QRemesher will automatically mesh the mesh denser in areas of finer detail/curvature if you so choose, or based on where you mask.

3DCoat is run by a religious extremist I'd rather not support either.

>> No.351611

>>351609
why do you care about the religious belief of the creator if he wont know you used his software?

>> No.351615

>>351611
How can you ever trust in a piece of software you know for a fact was written by a retard?

>> No.351617

>>351615
all humans are retarded, you, me, nothing new.
being a religious nutjob doesn't mean he's a bad programmer.

>> No.351619

>>351611
Because by using it, I'd be promoting it like that person is. And by promoting it, you increase its popularity and chances for further buys in the future.
Also, I wouldn't care if he was merely a regular Christian. But he is an extremist, so I will definitely not tolerate that shit. Would you use software made by Westboro Baptist Church if it was great?

>> No.351620

>>351617
>>351615
Let me clarify, while religon is utterly retarded by any sane persons standard, being religous doesn't qualify you for being named 'retard' in my book.
There is scores of uneducated science-illiterate people on the planet who grow up with people telling them what to believe, those aren't retarded just misguided.
Being someone able to understand how the computer works and able to grasp advanced logics and author complex code while STILL believing in supersticious bull, now that's a retard.

>> No.351622

>>351619
I used to think that way, I was a GNUtard, I installed ubuntu and belief all the lies of /g/
until I realize I was being a sheep, but instead a sheep of microsoft, I was a sheep of Free software foundation.
I don't care what you think about me, neither I care what people think of other people.
I only care me and getting the best results.

>> No.351623

>>351617
>being a religious nutjob doesn't mean he's a bad programmer.

Raping children doesn't make you a bad politician. But would you vote for the guy?

>> No.351624

>>351620
I think you're missguided about your beliefs about religion.
First, religion simply is a way to seek God, the true lover, the maker of the universe, the flow of time, the infinite, etc.
Second, religion seeks to gave human life a true meaning, be that meaning to live as a moral and justice human, acording to the holy writings God had given humans.

Second, just for clarify, science doesn't conflict with religion, science is just a method to make experiments to test the actual knowledge while self-evaluating itself to be more acurate.

Religion seeks knowledge as the end, science as the beggining of the path.

Religion seeks to answer: What is a good life for humans.
Science seeks to answer: How stuff works.

Keep that in mind.
Atheism is still a belief, there's no such things as hard facts, everything are just perceptions.

BTW science also rellies on beliefs such as Newton rellying on supersticious forces he called gravity to explain stuff he never could discover what is in reality gravity.

>> No.351625

>>351623
bad analogy, see me after class.
don't take offtopic this thread.

>> No.351628

>>351622
Bill Gates is one of the worlds biggest philanthropists, I have no problem supporting the company he started. Certainly would feel better about it than Loonucks.

>> No.351633

>>351624
I think you're misguided* about your beliefs about atheism and science.

First, religion is one way for people to believe there is something more than this life for the most part. People can seek "God" without religion.

Second, religion does not provide anymore meaning, only the illusion of meaning. All you're doing is replacing the idea of humans being created with a creator, with a creator being created without a creator. It's a fallacy and merely complicates things more.

"Second" (actually third), just for clarify (lol), science does actually conflict with many religions sacred texts. Scientists find out facts that contradict things that have been said and believed in these texts.

Religion seeks to only believe and to shut out that which contradicts it, which is not helpful to the progression of science.

Religion does not seek to answer, it claims to know.
Science seeks to answer everything.
Psychology seeks to answer what is a good life for humans.

Keep that in mind.
Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of a theistic belief. The very word's definition means "no theism".

BTW Science relies on "theories", not beliefs. A scientist says "This is how things seem to work, now let us all do tests to confirm it. If we do not fully understand how it works yet, we will call it a phenomenon and give it a word for use in other scientific experiments until further knowledge is gained".

>> No.351635

>>351624
>First, religion simply is a way to seek God, the true lover, the maker of the universe, the flow of time, the infinite, etc.

No religon is simply a way to think you're immortal, and that somehow you knowing this makes you better than others.
It's also a set of rules you need to follow in order to reap the alledged reward of a possitive afterlife.
Sometimes historically, this award has involved murdering other people just for thinking different.

So fuck you very much but no, religon is not SIMPLY what you claim it is.
Two centuries ago I would've actually been burned at a stake just for saying this - That's what religon is.

>> No.351637

>>351624
>science doesn't conflict with religion

Science says we shall seek the truth no matter where the evidence leads us, and that we shall subject any claim to the same rigorous fault testing as any other claim.
Therefore Science is very much in conflict with Religon which is built on blind faith, scientists are just uncomfortable in clearly saying so - because too many religous people left in the world.

>> No.351639

>>351624
>Keep that in mind. Atheism is still a belief

No it's not, if theism didn't excist, there would be no atheism. Everybody, even you, is atheist about the theology of every religon there ever was, save one.
As it's popularly pu, people calling themselves atheist just go one religon further than you.

>> No.351950

>>351635
> and that somehow you knowing this makes you better than others.

Ever heard of Richard Dawkins?

> That's what religon is.
No, that's what Christianity is.

>>351639
I'm not even sure if that made sense.

>>351620
>>351615

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Internet Atheists!

>> No.351952

>>351950
What do you mean by the 'internet atheists' ?
They're probably atheist offline to, makes very little sense otherwise.

>I'm not even sure if that made sense.
He means that you do not believe in the theology of none of the other religions of the world except the one you belong to.
Atheist means you are non theist, like atypical means you're non typical.
You don't believe in the gods of ancient egypt or norse mythology etc. They're just a fairytale to you, therefore you're to be considered atheist about those religions.

I'm a christian myself, comes from a christian family but I must admit what the atheists are saying makes a whole lot of sense.
I feel very uncomfortable about how sound their reasoning is compared to my own pigeonholing when I try to resolve the issues they raise.

>> No.351956

>>351952
Ok, now I see it. It's that whole "one religion further" crap that confused me.

What's with all these people saying someone is an atheist because they aren't a Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist and instead believe in something else? In case you didn't know, atheist means lack of belief. As in you don't believe in any religion. If I believe in something, I'm not an atheist. It's that simple. If I believe in God, I'm not an atheist. If I don't believe in any god, then I'm an atheist. There is no such thing as being an atheist to certain religions. The very idea contradicts itself, so why do people keep using it?

>> No.351957

>>351952
It's those people that like to insult theists just because they want to believe in a God. It's like it's never crossed their mind that some people CHOOSE to believe, and instead strawman by calling them brainwashed or stupid.

>> No.351962

>>351956
They use it because it's not a contradiction to them. They have me say I'm theistic about Christianity and atheistic about Islam and Allah.
It's actually pretty smart of them because it shows that we too reject other gods the same way they reject ours.

>>351957
I've been abroad in Europe and know many atheists there, they're pretty much like everyone else.
Some of them are on a rambling crusade against religion and attacks it every chance they got sure,
but most of them are accepting and keeps their views to themselves unless they're provoked.

>> No.351968

>>351956
It's not a contradiction in the way it's being used, you're just taking it in a literal way, when it's being used as a metaphor. It's basically pointing out that you choose not to believe in all the other hundreds of religions out there, and thus are "in a sense" atheist towards all other religions, so why not the last one you still hold onto? What makes it special? The point is that an actual atheist just takes one step further, one religion less.

>> No.352085

>>351952
internet atheist are fucking hipsters who think religion is evil.
a real atheist will say there is no god, but religion has an important role in the history of mankind, gave some important moral roles to humans, allow for a sense of comunity to be build, gave people hope and meanings to their lives, allow for some of the most beautiful persons who dedicate their lives going to africa to feed the hunger (phisycal or espiritual) of poor people.
People who only read fucking facebook and never understood religion.

I'm not religious, but fuck off.

>> No.352087

>>351962
I'm OP and I hated that this thread become a fucking cancer.
I come from a catholic south american family, I have a very devote aunt who is catholic, goes every sunday to church, pray the rosary, etc.
I have another aunt who is protestant.
I don't believe in the bible, but I understand what religion is about.
I fucking hate internet atheism.

>> No.352219

>>352085
Your argument is invalid because many countries have risen to be beautiful, much better than "murika", without religion. Also, one of the biggest charities in the world is not religious, The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation.

Religion is responsible for millions of deaths, constant ignorance off science holding back its advancements for millenias. Religion is not needed for society to form good values. You know how a society forms good values? Through intelligence, through understanding that if we just fucking killed and stole from eachother, we would not get very far. Also due to this evolutionary trait called "empathy".

>> No.352220
File: 47 KB, 479x323, 008-If-heaven-is-filled-with-Christians....jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
352220

>>352219
And regarding America and christian morals let's remember what really happened. Pic related.

But this is /3/, not the right forum for this debate. so sage.

>> No.352276

>>352219
>Also, one of the biggest charities in the world is not religious

You want to know what the biggest charity in the world is? That's right, the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not defending them, as I detest Catholicism, but just letting you know.
>constant ignorance off science holding back its advancements for millenias.

You do know that modern science only survived the Dark Ages because of Christians, right? If religion hadn't been around, science would be far behind where it is today.

>>351962
>It's actually pretty smart of them
It's far from smart. It shows how they do not even know what atheism is.

It's a contradiction in the basest sense.

>> No.352282

>>352276
>You do know that modern science only survived the Dark Ages because of Christians, right?

MFW.. the 'dark ages' remained the dark ages because of dogmatic belief in the church being the authority on everything.
The west was more advanced before the rise of christianity and it only recovered in the secular spirit of the renaissance.
Europe was a backwater society of strife and warfare during the heights of the christian era.

medieval =! modern, so you see modern science did not exist at all during medieval times.
Instead a system known as scholasticism replaced roman academia, it worked like this: you stood and howled crazy ass bible-talk
and circle-referenced how what you said had to be true because it was in the bible or church doctrine and saying you were wrong therefore was heretical.
The origins of the scientific method can be found in Galileo Galilei's experimental approach where experimental testing
and actual investigation dictated what could be said to be true about a subject.

Christianity thanked him for advancing science by sending the the roman inquisition up his ass. So there's that.

>> No.352287

>>352282
Modern science wouldn't be around if it weren't for previous discoveries, made during medieval times. These discoveries had to be copied down, and when those copies deteriorated, they had to be copied down again. Very few people could write back then, they were too busy working for their feudal lords at the time, and so remained illiterate. Thus the task fell to monasteries to copy down everything, seeing as how monks were the most literate at the time, word for word; then the printing press came around Europe and literacy increased. These old texts formed the basis of modern science, yes, modern.

>The origins of the scientific method can be found in Galileo Galilei's experimental approach
Actually, scientific method originated centuries before, from Egyptian, Greek, and Roman experimentation. The very though that one person could originate the scientific method is laughable.

It's != you faggot.

>MFW...
If you're going to use MFW, try to include a face.

>> No.352301

>>352276
Bro, I was pointing that out to prove you don't need religion to be charitable. You're making no counter point with that. Charity should not be tied to personal religious bullshit. It should not be going around taking advantage of peoples poor circumstances to try and bring them into the fold with promise of aid. It's horrid.

>> No.352305

>>352287
>Modern science wouldn't be around if it weren't for previous discoveries, made during medieval times.
Incorrect, 'modern science' wouldn't been around if it wasn't for rediscoveries in medieval times of works written by the philosophers of antiquity.
Whatever secular knowledge about the world there was christians gained from heretical sources of the ancient world such as Aristotoles or Platon.
litteracy among the peasentry was not something that was desired among the rulers. Educated subjects make for un-ruley subjects.


>Actually, scientific method originated centuries before, from Egyptian, Greek, and Roman experimentation.
I challange you to produce one single example of a egyptan, greek or roman experiment that was conducted to investigate the physical laws of nature.

But enough of this. I strongly disagree with your account of western history. I agree to anyone saying the chruch played a actual meaningful role in trying to stave off
noble violence during the times. Europe were ruled by an illiterate warrior class of violent douchebags for hundredes of years and christianity actually tried it's best at times to regulate this.
But the evils commited in the name of chrisitanity and it's god with the crusades, the great schism and following religious wars, the inquisitions, the witchhunts and the rape an pillage of the new world
paint a dark and bloody trackrecord across it's historical account. Anybody being apologetic about the history of christianity must either be uneducated or flat out crazy.

sage goes in all fields for great sage.

>> No.352381

Hysterical, o lordy my sides hurt. /3/tard discussing philosophy and theology. For all you mouth breathing knuckle draggin atheists you better hope you are wrong. After all if people of faith are wrong no harm, no foul. If you are wrong oh, well, you know the story.

>> No.352409

>>352381
'Knuckle draggin atheist' now there's something new. Traditionally atheists tend to be the ones actually beliving in evolution, even if any sane christian ofcourse do as well.
Attempting to scare an atheists with fire and brimstone is like trying to scare an adult with storries about the boogieman.

Instead consider this: What if atheists are right? This life is the only one you'll ever have and you're wasteing it on meaningless cermonies and related bullcrap,
fearing for your non-existing soul and troubleing other human beings whoms lives you deem immoral our foul.
Because the bible says a guy cant have his cock up another mans ass, or that a girl who's gotten herself knocked up and isn't
in a possition in life to deal with the consequencies can't hit the reset button.

If people of christian faith are right the universe is run by an insane tyrant who plan to torture the majority of people for eternity.
If there is indeed a god, and that god is anything like the one described in the bible, we pretty much need to kill him like the divine terrorist he is.
If atheists are right then we're just like machines, once we break down and seize to operate nothing bad will happen.

In the atheist view we already know how it is to be dead, because all of us have been dead for aeons before the day we were born, there was nothing scary at all about it.

>> No.352417

>>352409
then abortion is the most criminal stuff since the kid will never exist again.
If god exist the aborted kid will still exist in god realm.

>> No.352418

>>352417

No it's not criminal at all because the colonies of cells was never a kid.

every egg and every sperm is pontentionally a person, but you don't call a girl who go a month without getting pregnant a killer
and you don't call a guy who shoots five loads a day into a tissue a genocidal maniac.

Do you remember when you were an embryo? No? well neither do I, I wouldn't have given two fucks about if somebody aborted me then.
If my mom was a struggling teen who felt she wasn't in a good position to provide for me and had an abortion I'd be totally okay with that
because I would never have had a life to miss having. get of your high horse and start caring about the people who's already here
instead of fussing over the ones who's yet to join the server.

>> No.352498

>>352381
Fail argument is fail. What if you're wrong about the hundreds of other religions out there who claim to be "the one", hm? Looks like you just spent your whole life worshiping the wrong god and now you're going to hell! OH NO!!!!

Seriously, use your brain. If a God exists, and he is actually as loving as you all make him out to be (despite all the shit he has apparently caused), then as long as you have lived a fairly good life, not intentionally harming others, any true God should be accepting of you. A God does not require worship, that is a man made idea, it is a PETTY idea.

>> No.352511

>>352498
oh so now you have decided i God doesn't meet your approval he must not exist? Why argue so hard about a position you are so certain of? I'll tell you why, deep down inside you know you are full of shit.

>> No.352532

>>352511
It's not about him meeting my approval, how dense are you? It's about it being illogical for a God to be petty. The whole fucking idea is ridiculous. And you know damn well the rest of my argument made sense as well, so the only rebuttal you can come up with is slander.

Instead of the beginnings of the universe just happening to exist, you replace that and add a further step, where somehow an all knowing entity that can do whatever the fuck it wants out of pure will, just happened to exist and wanted to create this whole universe and care about the goings on of a few evolved apes among the billions of stars. It's soooo fucking silly.

>> No.352555

>>352532
Indeed. if there indeed is a god we can look at the world and deduce that he is either incompetent or just don't give a fuck.

The capricious nature of the universe is blatlanty apparent. Humans just try to assign meaning to all the random shit that happens
and how we go about it makes out motives completly transparent.

If someone is in an accident and manages to beat the odds we say things like "a guardian angel watched over him" "it wasn't his time yet".
When the opposite happen and guy is killed by the most harmless mishap, perhaps struggled with a obnoxious paperclip, dislodged
the glossy cover paper and accidently slit his thorat nobody ever says things like "a demon kept vigil by his side" "his final hour was struck".

>> No.352584

>>352301
Well you failed to acknowledge that a religious charity is the biggest in the world, and instead used whatever evidence suited you. So I was indeed presenting a counter.

>> No.352586

>>352584

Jesus christfag, do you even sage? This is /3/ - 3DCG.
Not /3/ - 3DCG & Christianity VS Sanity.

>> No.352591

>>352305
>Incorrect, 'modern science' wouldn't been around if it wasn't for rediscoveries in medieval times of works written by the philosophers of antiquity.
Which is the point I was trying to make. Only the literate could keep records at the time, and copy down documents, sell them, or put them in libraries. This allowed the knowledge to spread, eventually leading to questioning and experimentation during the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment Eras. Did you even read what I put down?

>I challange you to produce one single example of a egyptan, greek or roman experiment that was conducted to investigate the physical laws of nature.

>The Greeks were responsible for the idea of the atom (Democritus), Egyptians and Greek contributed greatly to mathematics, which is of course used in the scientific method (Leucippus, Pythagoras). The Greeks even got physics started, which is all about "physical law of nature" (Thales, Anaximander).

The Crusades...don't even attempt to argue that.

countersage

>> No.352592

>>352586
Lel @ christfag
So childish.

>> No.352593
File: 126 KB, 450x373, the-fullest-retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
352593

>>352586
Rofl, any evidence that suited me? Do you not understand what the point of that reply was? It was in rebuttal to the person implying that religion was needed for charity to happen, thus my statement about the fact "one" of the largest is non-secular. By saying "one" I implied it is not the largest, nor are the rest of biggest one's secular, so in fact I did acknowledge it through the English language.

What I will also acknowledge is that a lot of the religious charity is done for selfish needs, especially the biggest charities. They do it in hopes of converting people, instead of purely for the sake of charity, which makes it not truly charity. If a person truly wants to be charitable, they will join a secular charity that only aims to provide help.

>> No.352601
File: 15 KB, 202x184, 1356490132306.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
352601

>>352593
At what point did he imply religion was needed for charity to happen? He just said that religion has played an important role by giving people morals, building communities, giving people hope and meaning, and that some people who are religious are charitable.

And by saying "one", you were implying that it is worth mentioning only because it is non-secular, thus using whatever EVIDENCE SUITED YOU.

I find it quite interesting that Catholic officials were caught donating money to abortion clinics recently.

>> No.352605

>>352592
I take it you're newfag then. That was actually a pretty creative transition.

>> No.352606

>>352601
You're picking and choosing sections out of a whole sentence and treating them as one, that's not how it works. He attributed community building, people have hope and meanings to their lives and people helping out in Africa, to Religion; implying that without religion, the world would have been much more horrible and severely lacking that stuff. Thus my retort that there aren't just religious charities, religion is not needed for charity to happen.

>> No.352608

>>352606
>that's not how it works
What are you, 12? Any part of one's argument can be turned against him. It's the whole point of debate, finding weak points in the opposition's assertions and exploiting them.

You're basing a lot of your arguments on implications, aren't you? He said that religion helped all those things, he never said that without religion those things would never be possible. Now you're just pulling things out of your ass.

>>352605
>newfag
I was pointing out how ignorant and close-minded atheists can be. Then they go and proclaim their enlightenment and superiority with the same breath.

>> No.352616

>>352608
That's not how the English language works. Sentences are to be taken as a whole, using one section out of a sentence is called taking something out of context, it's not ok to do.

>> No.352618

>>352616
Now you've gone and turned this into an argument about language.

Just let this thread die already.

>> No.352621

>>352618
Proper use of English matters if you're trying to get your point across and don't want to be misinterpreted.

>> No.352628

>>352621
The point is, you know you're wrong and are trying to turn this around.

The only context that matters is what the words mean. You did the same thing when you said he was implying religion was needed for charity to happen. You took the part where he said religion has produced charitable people and turned it into him saying religion created charity.

Also, you've never looked at the actual charitable donations different religious foundations have made, more evidence of evidence fitting the claim.

Do yourself a favor, look up "strawman".

>> No.352654 [DELETED] 

>>352555
Your "logic" amuses me to no end. you claim to know the unknowable, yet you fundamentally know very little. I'm not arguing with you I'm poking you with a stick. Of all the myriad possibilities in the universe you chose the most belligerent get up on a soap box and proclaim your perspective as though you and only those that agree with you are sane and everyone else is inferior or damaged. You seem to like the word petty. Your point of view is just that. Its bizarre to be so "fanatical" about people you perceive to be "fanatical". Kinda schitzo actually. Perhaps you would benefit from medication?

>> No.352658 [DELETED] 

>>352555
Your "logic" amuses me to no end. you claim to know the unknowable, yet you fundamentally know very little. I'm not arguing with you I'm poking you with a stick. Of all the myriad possibilities in the universe you chose the most belligerent get up on a soap box and proclaim your perspective as though you and only those that agree with you are sane and everyone else is inferior or damaged. You seem to like the word petty. Your point of view is just that. Its bizarre to be so "fanatical" about people you perceive to be "fanatical". Kinda schitzo actually. Perhaps you would benefit from medication?

>> No.352659

>>352532
Your "logic" amuses me to no end. you claim to know the unknowable, yet you fundamentally know very little. I'm not arguing with you I'm poking you with a stick. Of all the myriad possibilities in the universe you chose the most belligerent get up on a soap box and proclaim your perspective as though you and only those that agree with you are sane and everyone else is inferior or damaged. You seem to like the word petty. Your point of view is just that. Its bizarre to be so "fanatical" about people you perceive to be "fanatical". Kinda schitzo actually. Perhaps you would benefit from medication?

>> No.352662

>>352659
I don't claim to know the unknowable, I'm merely pointing out how silly of an idea this ideology is :)

> you chose the most belligerent get up on a soap box and proclaim your perspective as though you and only those that agree with you are sane and everyone else is inferior or damaged

Funny, the same could be said about the majority of religious people. Especially the one's who feel the need to go door to door and proclaim you are going to burn in hell.

I'm fanatical about a prosperous future for mankind. For our society to advance intellectually, we need to get rid of these cave man ideologies that we made up when we didn't have the tools or knowledge to come up with a more logical and sound answer based on evidence.

>> No.352664

>>352662
wow you really are devoted eh? so sad. keep tilting at those windmills don.

>> No.352754

>>351587
Who is this girl, seems familiar ??