Reply #104: I'm not fond of that definition, true, but if I use that definition for a moment...

[Silent3]

...it's pretty clear that Dawkins is not trying to tell everyone "whatever you take most seriously isn't real". Am I to take it that your disapproval of Dawkins is that he doesn't treat all "existential choices", including his own, as somehow equivalent, somehow equally valid or invalid?

Dawkins's message does turn into saying "whatever you take most seriously is very likely imaginary or even delusional" in the cases where the "whatever" is an unproven supernatural belief. I'm sure that this isn't a pleasant thing to hear someone when the subject is one's own beliefs, but we don't generally fault people for stating opinions simply because those opinions aren't universally soothing.

By the way, good luck trying to run a public school, or any other secular institution for that matter, while using your definition of religion. Governments could never, ever escape promoting several "religions". Science would be a religion, economics would be a religion, even history and physical fitness would be "religions" -- for all of those things, there are at least some people somewhere who take those things "most seriously".