Wadusher0

Science is the process of using reason to acquire knowledge about the truth of reality that can be communicated. Religion is the idea that there is a higher plane of truth that cannot be communicated. If, for example, I say I know how God created the earth, I cannot communicate how he did so because God only exists in my head. If, On the other hand, I look to geology and astrophysics for answers on how the earth was created, I can communicate the process. This is where science is fundementally in conflict with religion, because God is an abstract that exists on a higher plane of reality that only you can comprehend, therefore I am dependant on you for the truth, and have no choice but to obey your every whim.

I do not wish to seem biased in the statement that religion always includes building your life around telepathically communicating with something you cannot prove exists. Nor do I think it is biased to say that gods defy logic. They do - it is ridiculous and impossible to be all knowing AND all powerful, as gods are typically accepted to be. You still haven't defined what goes on at the core of religion, or how it is distinguished from science. Science is based on the fact that one does not know the truth about something, and begins investigating. Religion is based on the assumption that one does automatically know the truth about that something. This precludes further investigation. This is an entire universe of diferrence, which means they are very much mutually exclusive. I suppose we can continue the discussion of morality via PMs if you wish to let other people decide the direction of the thread. It is actually very simple to define religion as immoral, as morality is incredibly easy to define, but I agree, thats a topic for a seperate thread.

I would not stoop to their level, even if they activate my lizard brain parental instincts by attacking my favourite pony. I would instead calmly and politely ask them how their day was, then question what prompted their outburst. I would not allow them to avoid answering, mind you,

I wouldn't call it either of those, personally. A system of thought is too vague a definition for something like this, and so is a central subject by which one conducts their life. There are many, many systems of thought out there, and just as many central subjects. Science fits those definitions, but religion is not in any way built upon the scientific method. Yes, I may be biased against religion, but thats because I understand that it is immoral, if morality is defined by avoidence of the initiation of force against a person, as was implied to have happened in the above example. We evolved to be biased against that which is destroys us. But if you want a morally neutral definition with very few biases, then we can define a religion as: A ) A system of thought which is not based on reason and evidence, but on the beleif that entities that defy logic exist and control your life. B ) The assumtion that these entities - we know them as Gods - both know and control everything in the universe. This is, in fact, impossible. C ) Building your life around the assumption that Gods will reward you for obedience to your elders and punish you for disobedience. Punishment being why I bring up the use of force. Is that specific and unbiased enough for you?

Okay, this discussion is going nowhere fast without the help of some definitions. Religion is, fundementally, bribing someone with something you do not possess and cannot prove exists, coupled with threats that something you also cannot prove exists will kill them. For example - a man might come to your house and tell your child that "HE HAS SINNED!" and that he "MUST PLEDGE HIS ALLEIGENCE TO GOD IN ORDER TO BE CURED!!" and that this made up thing called sin will kill him when this is in fact complete nonsense. I have never seen a brony say something like that in my life, therefore I have doubts that one can rationally argue that any of us bronies treat MLP like a religion. This is NOT THE SAME as simply being "obsessed with the show," but I don't think you folks realize that. Now, bronies are just people who enjoy a specific form of entertainment called My Little Pony. Bronies are not priests. Many of those people are very outgoing about their love of the show, and are often in other people's faces about it, but has anyone ever been threatened with eternal torture after they die for not watching or enjoying this show? Obviously everyone is allowed to beleive in things that cannot scientifically exist, but if any brony not only assumed that Equestria was a real place, but thought that it would be a good idea to make someone think that, say, Princess Celestia herself would descend from the skies to rain down fire and destruction on people who don't like the show, he would be laughed out of the country. This is, of course, what I think of when you all say bronies "treat MLP like a religion", which is ridiculous.

I would argue that, like all crazy cartoon characters, she doesn't even need money for those, as she appears to simply will specific objects into existence when it is funny to have them nearby. Because who needs logic when you can PARTY!