If you want to use a substanded source to prop up your arguments, then be my guest, but it holds no weight with me.Basing something off of a dictionary definition can be perilous sometimes. Here is why:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
None of those focus on a god as the qualifying factor, and one even uses Buddhism as an example. Now its just a matter of which definition you will accept or reject, and that is a matter of opinion.
So, unless you can make a reasonable argument why buddhism shouldnt be considered a religion that isnt based on one version of a definition, Im certainly all ears, and I would hope everyone else here is too. But until then, your argument is not exactly convincing.
And while jesus was supposedly jewish, his alleged teachings were different from the jewish doctorine. and there is also a lot of stuff surrounding christianity that doesnt really have much to do with jesus. I mean, one could argue that paul was just as responsible for christianity as jesus.