People who consider themselves "spiritual" typically aren't worshiping a specific god from a defined religion. They do things like spirit worship or ancestor worship.
en.wikipedia.org
" The interactions are complex since even conservative Christians designate themselves as "spiritual but not religious" to indicate a form of non-ritualistic personal faith. "
By your definition a lapsed Catholic who has stopped attending mass would no longer be considered religious and wouldn't even be a Catholic, but that's not how Catholicism works (as I think you well know). You're only no longer a Catholic if you renounce Catholicism. Hell, even excommunication from the church doesn't make you no longer Catholic (according to Pope Pius VI "The excommunicated person, being excluded from the society of the Church, still bears the indelible mark of Baptism and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Church").
My definition would not indicate that. If you believe in the Catholic faith, you believe in all sorts of moral obligations. Claiming those obligations even without fulfilling them is still a religious action, an acceptance of fealty to a higher power, and you would undoubtedly believe yourself to be sinning in your failure to keep those obligations.
And if you renounce the Catholic faith, and decide none of that crap should apply to you, but continue to believe in Jesus, that doesn't make you still Catholic.
Let's try your imaginative linguistic approach elsewhere. A menu says the chow mein comes with beef or chicken. Would you say that menu is ambiguous about whether the chow mein must come with beef?
You understand that your logic now would equally assert that religion does not require belief either, correct? If "or" means we can focus on half and disregard the other, the half you are focused on can be equally disregarded.
If we take your statement that religion was always about belief, in your analogy it would be like saying "chinese food was always about chicken", and then supporting that claim with beef being optional on the menu. It looks rather silly, Silvanus.
Then we agree. What are you even arguing about?