I wouldn't know if "serious practitioner" is an absurdly narrow qualifier because it's vague and slippery. "What's that, your church doesn't do any of that? Wel

I wouldn't know if "serious practitioner" is an absurdly narrow qualifier because it's vague and slippery. "What's that, your church doesn't do any of that? Well, that's because they're not serious practitioners". Granted, the GP didn't actually respond with that (AFAICT they haven't responded at all) which is why I agree that it's not quite the "No True Scotsman fallacy", but that is precisely the weasel wording that sets one up. Hence, a No True Scotsman qualifier, a qualifier that preempts any counterexample to this elaborate description of what religion is really about. Restricting a definition doesn't eliminate a No True Scotsman, that has nothing to do with it. The foundation of No True Scotsman is a vague and slippery definition. Just like no true Scotsman can disagree with my theoretical description of what Scots do, no serious practitioner can disagree with GP's description of religion. It's about falsifiability.