All I see here are a lot of personal attacks. Feel free to explain what your definition of "religiosity" is and why it doesn't apply to what Bambax quoted.

I asked which part is religious. Bambax quoted some non-religious things. Why would it be on me to prove everything he/she says is not something it obviously isn't?

Also, which attack is personal? I'm attacking an interpretation. Nothing personal about it.

When you ridicule any aspect of a person (such as their interpretation of "religiosity"), it's a personal attack. Look up the definition of "personal". Oh, and yes: calling someone's interpretation of "religiosity" "ridiculous" is literally ridiculing said personal interpretation.

Btw, I noticed that you still haven't provided your own definition of "religiosity". Are you worried that someone else might ridicule that as well?

Ok, so what is Googleyness?