• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Brohoofs

Recent Profile Visitors

1959 profile views


About Wadusher0

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
  • Personal Motto
    Draw or Starve. The choice is yours
  • Interests
    Space Science, Video Games, Science Fiction, and of course Drawing Ponies.

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic

  • Best Anthropomorphic FiM Race

MLP Forums

  • Favorite Forum Section

Contact Methods

  • deviantART
  1. 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.
  2. This is what comes to my mind whenever I see comically oversized villians such as Tirek.
  3. 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.
  4. 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,
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. Its an excellent drawing, but unlike 99% of this thread I see a few things that you can improve on. For one thing, Applebloom's bow is the same red as her mane. In the show its pink. Since this appears to be a pencil crayon drawing, you can fix that by colouring on top of the bow with a white pencil crayon. The back rim of Applejack's hat should also extend slightly further back. In the show, it can go all the way to the back of her neck. See here http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5h2p0J0zv1qc5ffho1_1280.png Her mane curves back in a rather strange manner as well. It looks like it should wrap around her neck, but its inclined in a way that doesn't really imply this. It should be more like what you have for Applebloom's mane. Once again, great work! My first attempt certainly wasn't nearly as good as yours.
  8. Well, here's mine, if you're into dogs.
  9. 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!
  10. Oooh, tough choice. I'm going to have to go with a yes, though. :3
  11. Episode 5 - "Flight to the Finish" deals with that. I suggest you watch it.
  12. I'll just throw my one-of-a-kind "budget astronaut" Scootaloo plushie here. She's from this comic.