People taking issue with the term religion and personal offense does not do much to counter my proposal that an emergent religion is codifying.

We are mammals after all. All social groups suffer from manifestations of human nature(s) that are viewed as detrimental.

It is not "religion" that perpetrates atrocities, but social groups, they may be religious, nationalistic, improvised, townships, tribes etc, there is nothing setting religion apart from this manifestation of human nature on a group level.

I do not tend to have emotional responses to the use of specific words unless in specific contexts that are meant to be deliberately offensive. As an autistic man I do not understand how some people demonize words and terms. It would appear that much of the rejection of the concepts I share is due not to the concepts themselves, but to the terms and words I employ to present such concepts. This explains why so many attempt to counter the term,s and not the arguments and in doing so do not actually consider or debate the concepts themselves but just reject the terms outright and fail to demonstrate or support their rejection with a tenable or meaningful argument and thus appear to me to be taking personal offense, in this case to terminology and specific words.

At the risk of offending many of you, if you have a problem with the term religion, or the concept of religion: grow up.

some of you are reminding me of people who take offense when they hear a swear word, or see two men kissing in public. that you respond with negative emotion to the use of a word or display is literally your problem, not mine, and if the basis of your rejection of the word and concept of religion is emotional, instead of a demonstration that the term lacks aptitude, then i can only consider such offense to be petty and reactionary. I am not going to twist my terminology to be politically correct for those who object to the concept and word religion.