You've missed the main point of my comment, which is this: that rather than banning "religion" outright (which I believe sets a dangerous precedent), that we instead encourage a culture that is highly discouraging and suspicious of claims without evidence, and encourages active criticism of such claims.

As for the definition of religion, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) defines religion as 'Religion is usually defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements; however, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.'

There are many definitions from Oxford, Merriam Webster, and others that do not specify a belief in god (which, itself, will have different definitions depending who you ask).

The reason why I provided my definition in my response was to reduce ambiguity - which is a good thing. So it's just silly and counterproductive to debate me on my definition. The most important thing is that we know what we're talking about in the context of a given conversation. You didn't provide a definition, so I gave you mine, so that we would both know what it was I was talking about.