well we went over the orange matter in the review thread, if you want to take that up again as it was pointed out there are far stronger arguments that quash that approach, so no need to take it up in 2 threads. Well if that is not the case lets start then with the fact that budhism and jainism are religions.
What about it? Listing examples have never been sufficient to determine the definition of something. That being said, not all are agreed that Buddhism is a religion. I am not of the strong opinion that Buddhism is not a religion, I am of the opinion that whenever we make an argument about religion, we should understand how that argument fits together. If we do, it will be pretty obvious whether Buddhism is included or not. We do not need to rely on the idea that Buddhism can only be regarded as a religion if we understand the arguments and whether Buddhism fulfils the criteria of religion-hood that the arguments rely on.