That's not a good definition of religion. It allows one to sneak in a history-laden term with a relatively innocuous definition, have someone accept the given d

That's not a good definition of religion. It allows one to sneak in a history-laden term with a relatively innocuous definition, have someone accept the given definition, and the introduce the rest of the history without having to prove it. For prior art see arguments that "something must be the first mover, and that thing we call God". Curiously, the sudden leap to "therefore the Judeo-Christian deity is proven to exist" keeps getting snuck in there without any extra proof. In other words, you're attempting to define a term of art using an existing word, and this just obscures the argument because most people will use its common definition, and not the meaning you're defining for it.