Regarding Buddhism not being a religion: Dawkins doesn’t assert that, he raises the possibility with regard to Buddhism and Confucianism, in the process of saying he won’t be attacking them. Partly because he doesn’t know as much about them.

As for whether they are religions: that’s a bit like asking whether a living Neanderthal would be a human. Kind of depends on how you define religion! Also on what you mean by Buddhism: the agnostic path to enlightenment through meditation put forth by Gautama, or the more supernatural melange of reincarnation, boddhisattvas, “merit” (sometimes obtainable through spinning prayer wheels, or reciting belief in a Buddha who’ll gather souls to a paradise), and demons often found in Buddhism-as-practiced.

Personally, I like Dawkins’ assertion that Buddhism isn’t a real religion, mostly because I identify strongly with Buddhism and I think of it in much the same way. To me that just gives it even more credence.

And Dawkins makes the point that while the vehement atheist may SEEM as blindly dogmatic as the vehement believer, all it would take is one piece of real evidence to the contrary to force him to rethink his position. Whereas the believer, in the face of thousand of pieces of evidence, still isn’t budging.

Your tagline says you’re a Buddhist. What do you make of Dawkins’ assertion that Buddhism doesn’t count as a religion? My exposure to Buddhism comes mostly from “Buddhism Without Beliefs”, by Stephen Batchelor, and I have to say, the idea that you can practice it without having to believe in god(s) or even a soul really appeals to me. But is that idea common or even accepted among Buddhists in general?

Is an “ardent atheist religious?” Personally I don’t think so, but I can see where the point of view comes from.

I was raised as a Christian Scientist. Beyond that having branded me, to most other so-called Christians, as an heretical cultist, it left me with a different attitude about prayer, and the proper place of religion. I took to heart Matthew 6:5, which, to me, says that I should not be pushing my beliefs on anyone, by making a big production out of my faith. I empathize with the folks in the article, who call themselves agnostics, so as not to publicly call out those who may feel differently.

But Dawkins serves a useful purpose, as he throws others’ intolerance right back in their face, forcing them to confront how their attitudes repel any who are not already “convinced”.

The other arguments Dawkins effectively answers. And despite the invalidity of the two above (the don’t, after all, outweigh the trouble caused by intense religious belief) people still cling to them as reasons why religion deserve more respect than anything else.