Religious systems of belief/value are characterized by superstition, magic, dogma, clergy, temples, and the like.

because of those like you who work to insure it's characterized that way.

Other systems of beliefs lacking these things could better be described as a philosophy or ideology.

While you might think it's worthwhile to draw a baseless distinction between yourself and this imaginary "them" who, supposedly, unlike you, are "religious" by saying instead "Mine is a philosophy" or "mine is an ideology", I don't. I say we're all religious, now let's articulate and compare beliefs. One approach is rude and dismissive and the other is respectful and engaging.

Your argument relies on simplifying down a definition until it lacks many of the things critical to its definition, and then comparing it to something that more closely resembles the definition you whittled down. Like because all rectangles are squares all squares must be rectangles. That bit of misinformation would make sense if you kicked the part about squares being defined by equal sides, and not just 4 90 degree angles.

There is some merit to what you are saying. But what I am doing is simply demanding that the words I use are based on logically sound interpretations. There are myriad philosophical and ideological principles, when we choose which ones to live by we are fashioning our religion.

Similarly, you drop the parts of the definition of religion/religious belief that pertain to god, heaven, and all the magic hocus pocus until you're left with a vague, general system of belief, and you try to argue your point from there.

It don't yet see why I shouldn't drop nonsensical notions from my concept of religion. Perhaps you ought to try it some time. If my system of belief seems vague to you, you are of course welcome to ask clarifying questions. If you did, and could thereby help me refine it by offering your scrutiny and criticism, I'd be grateful.

Clever dick rational, no doubt, and if you want to deliberately limit your "understanding of what religion is" in this way it makes your point hard to argue, because you're arguing down to the point where language no longer means anything; where one word means the same thing as another because it contains some of the same elements in its definition, and those parts are all your focusing on.

I disagree with you and I think it's you who is deliberately limiting your "understanding of what religion is" and looking at it in an overly narrow (not to mention logically unsound) manner.

I'll try reasoning with you applying your square/rectangle analogy. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares because in order for a rectangle to be a square, all it's sides must be equal. Now fill in the blank: All religions are belief/value systems but not all belief/value systems are religious because _______________

I have system of belief and value that are not religious

Right.. I get it. When you are misinformed it's not superstition, you are free from all "superstition", you are able to recognize magic as trickery unlike those with "religious beliefs", you have a few things you are very sure about and are unwilling to compromise on, but you aren't dogmatic like those religious people. Those you highly respect, and the buildings they work in aren't called clergy or temples. So you can call your belief and value system non-religious.