Yikes! At risk of bringing your autistic level of conceit to bear on my humble self you seem mainly to be "asserting" a particular and uncommon structurally centered definition of religion that you personally prefer as intrinsically correct in order to summarily dismiss the more common understanding of the term.

I didn't realize that autistic people were conceited. From my experience, which is extensive, they have a sensory issue. They get distracted easily and can be fastidious because their senses are more sensitive, and your brain tunes to its equipment, so they can tend to have an attention to detail that can often be stunning. Of course this tends to neglect very fluid things like emotions, including their own. I guess from your perspective they're conceited, which means for any ignorant person that they must be conceited. Unfortunately half the posts over at /r/Aspergers are in regards to struggling with such abuse and hubris from bullies.

Which is my exact problem with your reasoning. How can I have a discussion with somebody who mistakes their perspective for a reality and, worse, thinks it far more conclusive than it is? So conclusive that you just talk at somebody and consider it a conversation.

Whether you like it or not the term religion has historically denoted well, a religion, and I feel no real need to parse the word further..

Exactly the problem: "As you know my point of view is totally true. I see no reason to give reasons. You either see my point of view or you're autistic--which means dumb, because I said."

It is a common use word with characteristics absent from your attempted redefinition.

"My definition is just correct. It is the baseline. Your citation of Dr. Peterson and why..? Fuck all that. My view is historical and true and science. I wont say where, when, how, or any of that--it's just true. Anybody who doesn't get it is an idiot and against reality."

The Dunning-Kruger Effect in full force.

Very embarrassing.