I am religious, in the sense that I am a member of a religion. The difference is that my religion is not a theist one. I’m an atheist and therefore, as I explained elsewhere, I adhere to the root meaning of the word ‘religion’, to be egotistical enough to quote myself (in turn quoting others):
The word ‘religions’ Latin root word is religiō which means an individual virtue of worship in mundane contexts; never as doctrine, practice, or actual source of knowledge. The ancient Roman’s used it not in the context of a relationship towards gods, but as a range of general emotions which arose from heightened attention
So, my religion is similar to Bhuddism or Jainism in that gods are not a requirement. I don’t believe in or practice the same things as them I’m just saying the ‘no gods required’ model is similar.
All of which is to say I have no real issue with religion as an idea. If someone wants to believe in a supernatural being that’s entirely up to them. My issue with it starts when it starts to seep in to laws and regulations and government and state practices and when adherents to these religions feel it’s fine to start evangelising their opinions and morals on the rest of us in ways that inevitably end up oppressing people who want nothing to do with them, don’t believe in them and don’t follow them. I don’t see why any theist feels that it’s acceptable to practice their religion outside of their own homes and places of worship.
I also find their insistence that morality can only come from a belief in not just a god, but their particular god to be breathtakingly arrogant and I do believe that theist religion in this aspect, as well as some others, is holding back human development.