You don't like the definition you find in dictionaries so you make up your own, then justify this by disparaging dictionaries in general. It's not a problem to make up your own definitions, except to the extent it diminishes your ability to communicate clearly.
It is said that a productive discussion can only be had by agreeing to definitions of terms. It isn't conducive to a reasonable exchange of views to preemptively assert that your personal definition is the correct one, and that anybody who disagrees with you is incorrect. In fact you'll often end up discussing definitions rather than the ostensible topic, assuming there is one. In this case the topic is a particular personal definition, so maybe we'll be okay.
Dictionaries by long-standing practice tend to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is, they attempt to delineate generally agreed and prevailing usages rather than dictate what is the proper usage according to the editors of the dictionary. So for instance
incredulous is generally understood to mean "skeptical" or "expressive of disbelief." However in the latter part of the 20th century it was becoming common for people to use the term to mean "incredible" or "discreditable" because they were unaware that this was contrary to the prevailing usage. It so happens that a couple of centuries ago
incredulous was used in this way as well as the current recognized usage.
Merriam-Webster therefore has listed the revived usage, and appended a note saying that "it is widely regarded as an error resulting from confusion with
incredible, and its occurrence in published writing is rare." Still, I've noted its use in published writing and expect that at some point it will be fully accepted.
It seems to me that your understanding of how dictionaries are edited is faulty. There is strict review, but that review is entirely in regard to how people use words. Accurate observation and recording of results are the only parts of the scientific method that are of any use to dictionary editors. They aren't in the business of enforcing particular usage, except in places like France, where the Académie française is fighting a losing battle as it attempts to stop people "degrading" the French language.
All this is to say that I don't think it's out of line to disagree with a dictionary definition as long as one can make a very good case showing that the dictionary has failed to take account of a prevailing usage. On the other hand, the invention of a new definition to serve some agenda will tend to fail unless the inventor has a following that is willing to agree to the new definition and defend it. The lone advocate of an idiosyncratic definition, absent agreement by some portion of the population, is just engaging in a futile exercise in rhetoric.
How then would agreement be obtained? First, by showing that the current definition is inadequate in some vital way, failing to properly encompass a worthwhile concept. Second, by demonstrating the utility of the new definition. Third, by showing that the only way to improve the situation is to change the definition.
You believe that the current definition of
religion used by atheists is "a misnomer." It isn't just atheists who use that definition though. I suppose if you get enough atheists to agree with you there will be at least some impetus to change the prevailing usage, but it's really the wider population that matters in regard to usage.
For instance, many atheists have been asserting for some time that
atheism is "lack of belief in deities" rather than "disbelief in or denial of the existence deities." I've only encountered one dictionary that has partially accepted the definition supported by an apparent plurality of atheists: the
Cambridge Dictionary says that an atheist is "someone who does not believe in any God or gods." However it
still holds that atheism is "the belief that God does not exist." The difference between a positive belief and the absence of belief doesn't trouble them, it seems. Atheists who insist that atheism is an absence of belief in deities will continue to be confronted with dictionary definitions that don't acknowledge their usage, probably for some considerable time into the future. Even if you convince atheists to agree with you, the prospects aren't great.
Your definition of
religion dispenses with any reference to deities. OK as far as that goes, but the deities will not be so easily displaced; there will inevitably be confusion regarding the term should you succeed.
You insist that "belief
is a form of worship." It might be argued that is the case in a religious context but absent that context, belief and worship are without question two distinct concepts.
You attempt to justify your new definition by referring to rhetoric employed against atheists by religious people. That doesn't bode well if your intention is convince atheists that your definition is correct. Few atheists agree with the religious people's rhetoric in the first place. In the second place, agreeing with those religious people that atheism is a doctrine requires a redefinition of either the word
doctrine or the word
atheism. Atheism, as noted above, pertains to a position on the existence of a single class of entities, whatever recognized definition one chooses. On the other hand
doctrine describes a body of instruction or teaching. While there may be atheistic doctrines, atheism itself doesn't qualify as a doctrine. Apparently you're proposing the redefinition of more than just religion, then.
