Can you justify that statement? Many old religions were based on mythologies that consisted of fairy tales.

"Many old religions were based on mythologies..." Even if that's true (I won't argue the point), that does not make ANY religion a fairy tale. So: yes, I can justify my statement, and so can you. All you have to do is crack open a dictionary.

From the dictionary - Fairy tale: a story about magic and fantastical beings and/or lands. Religion: a belief in and/or worship of supernatural beings. According to the definition of fairy tale, and the definition of religion, there are certainly aspects of religion that would qualify it as a fairy tale without a deeper look. Why, how do YOU define a fairy tale, and how do YOU define a religion?

Well...I've never seen such a terse definition of religion from a dictionary, but - clearly - the "religion" of your definition is "a belief in" or "worship of" and not a tale of any sort.

Which definitions do you use? That may likely be the cause of the discrepancy.

No. Clearly there is no discrepancy - as I've pointed out. The definition you have presented also - clearly - cannot be used to equate "religion" with "fairy tale". The "religion" of your definition definitely exists. It is not a story. It is (according to your definition) either belief or worship. Belief is not a story. Worship is not a story.

I do not understand. So, if we agree (you said you would not argue this point) that the old polytheistic religions of Europe were based on mythologies, and we agree that mythologies are collections of fairy tales, which I believe is very well established by evidence, then how do you conclude that it is impossible for any religion to be fairy tales? Are you arguing that, since these religions were based on more than one fairy tale, they are not themselves fairy tales, or are you saying that just because one believes in them/worships their characters, that this transcends to a new level, and thus is no longer equivalent?

"and we agree that mythologies are collections of fairy tales, which I believe is very well established by evidence" - Disagree, but also not relevant.," then how do you conclude that it is impossible for any religion to be fairy tales?" Because the definition of the word "religion" is in no way synonymous with the definition of the word "fairy tale". "Are you arguing that, since these religions were based on more than one fairy tale, they are not themselves fairy tales," - Well: that's certainly one thing. Obviously if something that is not a tale is "based on a fairy tale" that something is not a fairy tale. "or are you saying that just because one believes in them/worships their characters, that this transcends to a new level, and thus is no longer equivalent?" - No. I'm arguing that - in English - the meaning of the word "religion" is never in any - in ANY way - synonymous with the meaning of the word "fairly tale"...or even "tale". A religion is not a story. Let me say that again: by standard English definition, a religion is not a story. A story is not a religion. The two things are not the same, are never the same.

Is "The Chronicles of Narnia" a story?

It is a collection of stories. And - therefore - it is not a religion (because a religion - by definition - is not a story or a collection of stories).

Some religions, I would say, are little more than collections of stories, for example the ones I brought up. But I suppose you'd disagree, based on the fact that your particular religion of choice is more heavily based on a moral code. I still think that, if you could draw a Venn diagram of fairy tales and religions, there would be some overlap, but if we get into the minutae of pedantic arguments,it could get very messy.

Let's be clear: most religions INCORPORATE one or more mythologies. So: religions do INCLUDE stories. But the religion is NOT IN AND OF ITSELF a story OR a mythology. And you don't have to take my word for it. It's not a matter of opinion. Just look at the standard English definitions of the words.

The examples I pointed out are all cases where the stories are the entire basis of the religion, and the only part beyond that is the actual belief in the stories. To my eyes, it's like someone put a lift kit in a truck and you are saying: it's not the same truck. IDK. I think, at this point, we agree to disagree.

If you believe the Bible is a fairy tale please get and read the book, ' Mysteries of the Messiah" by Rabbi Jason Sobel. If you are brave enough to read this book and still believe it is a fairy tale you have blind eyes and lack knowledge. I know you won't read it because you are without intestinal fortitude. So sad.

Of course it’s a fairy tale. I do not read books based on fiction like the bible. That book was written by people with an imagination and you’re foolish enough to believe in it. Religious people like you don’t show physical evidence in their religious claims because you’re all delusional. You’re not much of a “thinker” since you’re a religious weirdo however that’s up to you to believe in that bullshit. Just because I am not religious does not mean I have lack of knowledge and having a blind eye. You don’t have a clue what I know and you don’t have my eyes therefore you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m unaffected by religious bullshit so I don’t need to read a work of fiction. That’s up to you to believe in it. Sad really