However, using that argument, to some degree, communism, etc., also believe in the society as the supreme being. (Durkheim, IIRC, argues that religion is actually the manifest of the society itself). So, it brings back to my first posting that questioning why 'religion', seen as a philosophy, is single out as 'bad'.
My Thai Buddhist mother-in-law simply strives for a good rebirth.
My Thai Buddhist sisters-in-law believed in ghosts. They were deathly afraid of them. One claimed she'd seen them. To listen to them, you would have thought they were Tibetans. Mom-n-law doesn't believe in ghosts.
When one of the sisters died, she had at her request, one after the other, first a Christian ceremony conducted by her pastor, and then a Buddhist ceremony conducted by monks from the local temple. The ceremonies had very different purposes. None of the Buddhists saw the slightest conflict, even attending both ceremonies. Some of the Christians expressed displeasure, others curiosity.
It all gets very complicated. Some Buddhists in some traditions simply hope for a good rebirth. Others hope for a stay in paradise. And others strive for extinction, an end to the cycle of rebirth.
Maceman places the emphasis on a supreme being or an equivalency. King Prout looks to a system of belief bound (in a good way) by ritual and higher authority.
To me, both seem to describe how individuals, alone or in community, embrace a spiritual belief which enables them to strive to transcend the mundane and the profane. I do not believe the agnostic or the atheist does that, not if they truly do not know or truly do not believe.