Unless you agree on the meaning of the terms you are using, any discussion tends to become meaningless.
This is so true. I realized that my last post was phrased in terms a bit too philosophical and with subtle but important nuances which makes them different than what people usually think.
No, not all religions require one/more supernatural being(s). At the core, Buddhism denies any "over there" being; also the Religion of Humanity, invented by
August Comte (a founder of sociology). It all boils down to what people understand by "religion" and even today there are dozens of definitions
Speaking of nuances, I have observed that I thought the thread is about "religion" games and yet it's about "religious" games. Biiiig difference but I think games can be made in either direction. Just find a conflict and build around it and you can specify any credible or incredible context.
As long as you're willing to sacrifice mass liking of your game, you can pick any religious single idea from any religion and make a game around it. And for each idea, you'll get 100 times more people hating it because somehow the game offends their own implementation of that same idea. Religion and sex are the two curious parts of human psyche which gets them so worked out over details that they hardly can "play" with concepts other than their own.
Which makes designing "a religious game" such a hard enterprise