I'm in college, still a Christian. Saying religion is a function of ignorance is like saying religion's only purpose to most people is to explain how the world works.
I'm in college, still a Christian. Saying religion is a function of ignorance is like saying religion's only purpose to most people is to explain how the world works.
Name a religion that does not espouse any belief that contradicts how the world works.
I'm in college, still a Christian. Saying religion is a function of ignorance is like saying religion's only purpose to most people is to explain how the world works.
Name a religion that does not espouse any belief that contradicts how the world works.
That's not what I said. Also: Asking this question gets you nowhere.
I am not so certain that it is willing ignorance, per se. He is likely informed, he simply chooses to accept the cognitive dissonance between what he knows and what he wants to be true.
I am not so certain that it is willing ignorance, per se. He is likely informed, he simply chooses to accept the cognitive dissonance between what he knows and what he wants to be true.
...Or my beliefs in the Bible also fit within science, and I don't reject any amount of modern science. There is no modern science that disproves a God. Yes, there is no proof. No, I have no reason to believe. But I want to. I guess that's ignorance in and of itself, but an ignorance of scientific knowledge isn't the (primary) cause of religion.
My point was that I believe in religion for emotional reasons, not because I don't understand science and use the Bible to explain the Earth.
Now, I know pretty much fuck all about this sort of thing, but other people here do - What do you guys think?
I've had animators whine about MoCap ("It's takin' our jerbs!"), just as traditional animators complained about 3D back in the day. Here's my take on it: Just because you can rotoscope, doesn't mean that every bit of 2D animation is traced from live action film. Same goes for MoCap. How are you going to Mocap, say, a dragon that you invented, or a tiny insect? Cartoon characters and very stylized characters often can't be done well with this style, and it doesn't fit them in terms of the motion even if you project a captured performance onto them. MoCap is a tool, like any other, which is useful for some things and no good for others. It also depends on how you use it. I have seen some pretty crud MoCap in my day. Really, I think that an animated film is not going to win best picture because of the type of animation it uses, but rather for the fact that it is such a wonderful story that moves people and contributes to the great legacy of storytelling through art. I don't care what tools they come up with, and what they make obsolete. As long as I can put my imagined stories out there, method is unimportant. I want something that comes as close as it can to what is in my head. Right now, animation (both 3D and 2D) is that method for my taking the ideas and putting them out in the world. That could change, but I doubt MoCap is going to erase the need for animators.
Also, I don't think there should be a separate thing. There is so much animation work in live action, and soon to be vice versa. It's really hard to define what constitutes an animated film. Does rotoscoping mean that a 2D film can't compete? What if I use photographs in my animated film? What if it is a Roger Rabbit situation? Animation is a method, not a genre.
...Or my beliefs in the Bible also fit within science...
LOL. Have you read the Bible? According to the Bible how long did Moses live? How was the Earth formed? How did humans come to be? Whats all this about collecting all non-aquatic life and putting two of them on a boat to save them from a flood that covered the Earth? Etc. and so forth.
...and I don't reject any amount of modern science.
If you believe what is written in the Bible and you accept modern science, then either you do not understand/know much about modern science or, as I said before, you choose to accept the cognitive dissonance between what you know and what you want to be true.
As I said, you want it to be true so you accept the cognitive dissonance between what you know to be and what you want to be.
I guess that's ignorance in and of itself, but an ignorance of scientific knowledge isn't the (primary) cause of religion.
WTF? No one said it was the reason for religious belief.
My point was that I believe in religion for emotional reasons, not because I don't understand science and use the Bible to explain the Earth.
I said that you weren't ignorant of scientific knowledge, simply that what you know to be true and what you choose to believe are at odds with each other and you've either blinded yourself to that truth or made some sort of (albeit illogical) peace with the incongruity.
I desperately wish I had motion capture available. Fuck the art behind it, I have to do a hundred different animations for a dozen different infantrymen.
...Or my beliefs in the Bible also fit within science...
LOL. Have you read the Bible? According to the Bible how long did Moses live? How was the Earth formed? How did humans come to be? Whats all this about collecting all non-aquatic life and putting two of them on a boat to save them from a flood that covered the Earth? Etc. and so forth.
To be fair, if his belief in the Bible is metaphorical and not literal, there is no real conflict with science here. Not all branches of Christianity accept the Bible as literal, historical/scientific truth and instead look upon it as metaphorical.
I've had animators whine about MoCap ("It's takin' our jerbs!"), just as traditional animators complained about 3D back in the day. Here's my take on it: Just because you can rotoscope, doesn't mean that every bit of 2D animation is traced from live action film. Same goes for MoCap. How are you going to Mocap, say, a dragon that you invented, or a tiny insect? Cartoon characters and very stylized characters often can't be done well with this style, and it doesn't fit them in terms of the motion even if you project a captured performance onto them. MoCap is a tool, like any other, which is useful for some things and no good for others. It also depends on how you use it. I have seen some pretty crud MoCap in my day. Really, I think that an animated film is not going to win best picture because of the type of animation it uses, but rather for the fact that it is such a wonderful story that moves people and contributes to the great legacy of storytelling through art. I don't care what tools they come up with, and what they make obsolete. As long as I can put my imagined stories out there, method is unimportant. I want something that comes as close as it can to what is in my head. Right now, animation (both 3D and 2D) is that method for my taking the ideas and putting them out in the world. That could change, but I doubt MoCap is going to erase the need for animators.
In a rough sense, I agree, though my position is much more basic - Sure, the performance of the actors isn't done purely by the animators, in the traditional sense they're speaking of, at least. But, what about the rest of the movie? The hair, clothes, backgrounds, foregrounds, objects, all of that stuff has to be animated.
I asked a friend of mine who is also an animator, and the comment was much shorter - "They're idiots. What do they think they're doing when they rotoscope someone doing something? They need to catch up to the technology and wield it as another tool, not shun it."
I asked a friend of mine who is also an animator, and the comment was much shorter - "They're idiots. What do they think they're doing when they rotoscope someone doing something? They need to catch up to the technology and wield it as another tool, not shun it."
That's it in a nutshell. There was even a grump session when they started switching 2D pipelines to digital. People wanted to paint cells!
Sure, the performance of the actors isn't done purely by the animators, in the traditional sense they're speaking of, at least. But, what about the rest of the movie? The hair, clothes, backgrounds, foregrounds, objects, all of that stuff has to be animated.
Character animators are mad, not the people who do environment dynamics and animation.
...Or my beliefs in the Bible also fit within science...
LOL. Have you read the Bible? According to the Bible how long did Moses live? How was the Earth formed? How did humans come to be? Whats all this about collecting all non-aquatic life and putting two of them on a boat to save them from a flood that covered the Earth? Etc. and so forth.
To be fair, if his belief in the Bible is metaphorical and not literal, there is no real conflict with science here. Not all branches of Christianity accept the Bible as literal, historical/scientific truth and instead look upon it as metaphorical.
What's the point of believing it if you don't believe it? Also, cognitive dissonance is willful ignorance by definition.
What's the point of believing it if you don't believe it? Also, cognitive dissonance is willful ignorance by definition.
Cognitive dissonance is simply having two (or more) conflicting ideas at the same time. Willful ignorance is avoiding being informed about something. These terms, while related, are not synonymous. Many religious people know and accept proven facts that conflict with their belief. This is cognitive dissonance, not willful ignorance.
...Or my beliefs in the Bible also fit within science...
LOL. Have you read the Bible? According to the Bible how long did Moses live? How was the Earth formed? How did humans come to be? Whats all this about collecting all non-aquatic life and putting two of them on a boat to save them from a flood that covered the Earth? Etc. and so forth.
To be fair, if his belief in the Bible is metaphorical and not literal, there is no real conflict with science here. Not all branches of Christianity accept the Bible as literal, historical/scientific truth and instead look upon it as metaphorical.
What's the point of believing it if you don't believe it? Also, cognitive dissonance is willful ignorance by definition.
Are you kidding me? If you're an Existentialist, does that mean that you have to believe that the events of Thus Spoke Zarathustra actually took place. Similarly, if you're an Objectivist, you don't have to believe that all that shit that happened in Atlas Shrugged is true. Basically, The Bible says this: One day, God said "Hey guys, don't be dicks." Then his son came down and said "Hey guys, all your extravagant bullshit doesn't matter, as long as you don't be a dick you're just all right with me." Everything else is basically interpretation of those principles. Yeah, it says that it's historical fact, but most people I know who are religious don't believe that.
What's the point of believing it if you don't believe it? Also, cognitive dissonance is willful ignorance by definition.
Cognitive dissonance is simply having two (or more) conflicting ideas at the same time. Willful ignorance is avoiding being informed about something. These terms, while related, are not synonymous. Many religious people know and accept proven facts that conflict with their belief.
Okay, what facts. You may find that those same religious people don't actually hold the beliefs that you think they do. Christians believing in evolution? There was a theory developed by Aristotle that was widely accepted in the early church, especially by Saint Augustine of Hippo and the early Popes called the "seed theory" or the "theory of God at play" which is basically the theory of evolution proven using Aristotelian science. Unfortunately, the Dark Ages kind of fucked that up as all of Aristotle's works were lost and never translated into Latin. Being a Catholic (here used because that's what I have most familiarity with) doesn't require any belief in the veracity of the Bible's historical claims at all.
Which brings me to a score I have to settle, here Rym said that "Most 'Catholics' aren't really Catholics by the Church's definition." Well, this is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church the official teachings of the Catholic Church.
Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,"the first to hear the Word of God."The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ","for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city.
The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."
tl;dr The church not only believes all Christians to be part of Catholicism, but also Jews, Muslims and anyone else who searches for God regardless of how they personally identify themselves. Catholic does mean universal, after all.
Comments
Also: Asking this question gets you nowhere.
My point was that I believe in religion for emotional reasons, not because I don't understand science and use the Bible to explain the Earth.
Really, I think that an animated film is not going to win best picture because of the type of animation it uses, but rather for the fact that it is such a wonderful story that moves people and contributes to the great legacy of storytelling through art. I don't care what tools they come up with, and what they make obsolete. As long as I can put my imagined stories out there, method is unimportant. I want something that comes as close as it can to what is in my head. Right now, animation (both 3D and 2D) is that method for my taking the ideas and putting them out in the world. That could change, but I doubt MoCap is going to erase the need for animators.
Also, I don't think there should be a separate thing. There is so much animation work in live action, and soon to be vice versa. It's really hard to define what constitutes an animated film. Does rotoscoping mean that a 2D film can't compete? What if I use photographs in my animated film? What if it is a Roger Rabbit situation?
Animation is a method, not a genre.
edit: Awww, come one, don't Christian flamewar Axel. We have done that. Let's flamewar about animation, and I can be in the middle.
I like Animation. It's cool. I suck at it. Will probably never get better, despite taking classes in it this upcoming school year. XD
I asked a friend of mine who is also an animator, and the comment was much shorter - "They're idiots. What do they think they're doing when they rotoscope someone doing something? They need to catch up to the technology and wield it as another tool, not shun it."
Many religious people know and accept proven facts that conflict with their belief. This is cognitive dissonance, not willful ignorance.
Which brings me to a score I have to settle, here Rym said that "Most 'Catholics' aren't really Catholics by the Church's definition." Well, this is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church the official teachings of the Catholic Church. tl;dr The church not only believes all Christians to be part of Catholicism, but also Jews, Muslims and anyone else who searches for God regardless of how they personally identify themselves. Catholic does mean universal, after all.
You sauté the onions first for about 2 minutes then add the corned beef then continue frying for about 5-8 minutes. Serve and mix with white rice and whatever else and enjoy.
I love them.