As for this part, we'll have to agree to disagree.
However, I like to define the terms I use in such discussion. This enables a better mutual understanding. You have defined religions in a way that I can not agree (even stating that it was the most relevant definition), so I simply brought a definition that I find most acceptable and complete. I maintain my position. A religion is a religion and an ideology is an ideology. However, I can understand what you mean by saying that certain concepts are religions for certain people .
First of all,thank you for your friendly gesture with the good repping
I would say that you've simply failed to read some of the statements and dogma by many Communist political and ideological leaders.They've made it clear,VERBATIM,even in simple terms,that atheism is superior to theism and that the latter,and even its supporters,should be eradicated ASAP for the general good while the former should be promoted for the betterment of self.I'm not debating whether or not that stance is true,only re-affirming that Communist diehards have often unequivocally believed in ramming atheism down everyone's throats just as religious fanatics aim to do with their chosen faith.
With all the movements you cited a few posts back(atheism,humanism,socialism,evolutionism and capitalism),the notable difference exists between rank-and-file supporters and the LEADERS who are at the forefront of the movements.The former will often tolerate dissenting viewpoints and the latter will NOT....If you look back at your dictionary definition of religion,there are only a couple elements lacking in the dogma of the diehards.They don't cite any supernatural deity,but they DO forcefully claim that no such deity exists(with the exception of capitalists and the more moderate socialists--moderate as compared with militant communism),and with THAT statement on supposed spiritual truth,the distinction from religion is largely semantic.The biggest disparity is in the lack of rituals and similar ceremonies in the ideological movements.In other respects,they fulfill your definition by claiming to know what our purpose in life should be,how we should behave towards fellow human beings,and what sort of world we should have...even professing that allegiance to the doctrine will lead to utter personal self-realization...not that dissimilar from the religious concept of salvation.
Aside from the more hardcore communists,none of the ideological movements we've discussed have typically practiced physical oppression of others,but even a quick glance at some of the literature demonstrates a quest to intellectually demagogue dissenting philosophies as both inferior and harmful to humankind...which entails educating EVERYone to think the same way to the extent that--they hope--opposing viewpoints will be discredited and erased from the public mindset....QUITE similar to religious brainwashing,IMO...with the only advantage being that dissenters are rarely tortured or killed when it comes to socio-political brainwashing.....Capitalist apologists are the least guilty of morally pontificating as they normally just lecture about how to get rich,but even THEY have their preachers like Rush Limbaugh who strongly imply that we all can achieve a near-blissful,idyllic state if we're only allowed an unfettered pursuit that leads to financial gain