•
•

[META] The Absolutely Un-Definitive Definition of Bad Religion (self.bad_religion)

IAmDoubleA が 投稿

So I'm noticing as this sub grows, we're maybe starting to fall prey to discussions and posts that don't strictly fall into what I would consider "bad religion", as well making comments that I myself would (subjectively of course) consider "bad religion".

So I thought perhaps we should start a discussion to get a better idea of what bad religion actually is, which will serve the purpose of both a) helping posts to be more relevant and b) serve as a useful "avoid" list for those wanting to discuss religion.

Thoughts? I'll post my own first contribution below.

全 3 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Scientologist2a 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Asserting members of a religion believe X when typically members of the religion believe Y.

Typically X is a strawman argument

[–]IAmDoubleA[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Insistance upon Literalism/Superficialism: Quoting a religious text and saying "look, this is the definitive proof". I think believers and non-believers alike are guilty of this in a myriad of ways (both in defense of, and in attacking, religion). A literalist/superficial reading is a way to read a text, but there are others, and literalism has no inherent superiority over another interpretation.

[–]nihil_novi_sub_soleNuance is just a Roman Conspiracy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd say any time that an outsider claims more right to define the "true" version of a religion than they grant to actual practitioners, if not anyone who asserts that there can even be a single, correct version of any given faith from a neutral or academic standpoint.

Insistence that fundamentalists are the real members of a religion, assuming that their claims to being the best representation of early practitioners are true, and accusing anyone else of "watering down" tenets of the faith are fairly common tactics, used by both fundamentalists themselves and those who wish to portray religion as inherently negative and thus don't want to criticize fundamentalists in a way that legitimizes moderates, reformers, or traditionalists.