I voted “yes” for myself and “no” for most other people. 
I voted yes… though what religion initially was has changed over time.
Well done, James. 
I voted yes in the sense that there are mine, yours and theirs.
Anthropologically said: the exercise has changed over time.
A religion is the effort to Retain the legion or simply maintain a reasonably cohesive and coordinated society. People must have a reason/purpose for what they do else not be inspired to do it, resulting in impotence, conflict, and eventual extinction. Realize that long before people could read or write any language, the methods for trying to get people to be inspired and/or cooperate were already well known and formulated. Through time, more complex varieties came about. In different parts of the world with different gene pools, different methods took hold easier and provided stronger societies. The religions and cultures of today are merely remnants of thousands of years of refining formulas for societal bonding and defense.
Some of the strategies are literally over 10,000 years old, each having to compete with others in real life over many generations. Evolution has had its hand in the formation of worshiped “wholly spirits” as well as “demons” and “devils”. The practices that are maintained are designed from thousands of years of trials and experience.
But the hue of the society, the people of that region, alter which religious practice brings the better result for that race and environment. Those doing the designing of these things don’t seem to recognize that simple fact (especially not the exceedingly presumptuous atheists).
Religions are misunderstood spiritual exercise systems.
What do you think about that?
Pretty obviously true.
Would you mind telling me why you think so? 
???
Why I think that they are misunderstood? Or why I think they are “spiritual exercise”?
They both seem pretty obvious to me.
To exercise means to expel the weakness/dissonance/division/demon, or to strengthen and purify to be more whole and solid. Religious practices concerning both rituals and attitudes/ethics condition one’s spirit into a more instinctive response. The intent is that the particular conditioned responses makes for a stronger society. Different conditioning is required by different races and genders.
Does this mean that if a believer thinks a religion or his or her religion is actually a set of beliefs and some moral precepts they are wrong?
Anyway, in the West there has been a strong move away, in the Abrahamic religions from religion as a set of practices to develop the self to something more based on morals and beliefs. Beliefs as ends.
That said I don’t think one can separate beliefs and practices from each other, even if some religions seem to suggest one can or should or will after some stage is reached.
…that is, I know what I mean by it. I was once in an anti-religious religious group. As a religious person, it was a bit disconcerting. Now I’m spiritual. That cleared everything up.
Religion is like a college degree as compared to a doctorate in spirituality.
Agree totally.
The point is some religions at their best are limited to the highest grade school level.
The concern is that the people are also. And that is why those religions work so well with those people. You can send people to “higher education” schools in order to attempt to learn a different religion (such as physics). But you cannot cause them to be more than they are. And they are not physicists, educated or not.
I agree with the above.
However, the relevant point is those limited religions [which are VERY efficient at present] are rigid and fixed based on immutable doctrines. Note infallible humans cannot edit or change the words of God, that would be blasphemous.
In addition, the thousands of evil laden verses fixed and immutable will be a net-liability to humanity in the future.
The above refer to the Abrahamic religions [AR], i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The other point, fact is humans are dynamic, evolving and progressing with time.
Therefore when the ARs become a net-liability to humanity, they should be replaced with generic foolproof spiritual methods to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential dilemma.
The question in my mind is will the current religions evolve? Apparently, they will not without further divisions and bloodshed.
The current religions will evolve [adapt] and morph into further divisions. Bloodshed is very likely to occur within Islam.
IMO, the only path forward for religions is they and the majority will all eventually evolve towards a generic positive spirituality. This is leveraged on the glaring trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge [neurosciences, genomes, and others] and technology with inputs from philosophy. However as with human nature and the principle of the Bell Curve, there will be pockets [very small percentile] of people who has to rely on religions.
However, I see a problem with the Abrahamic religions which rely on an infallible God whose delivered holy texts cannot be edited, revised nor changed by fallible humans. Since it is impossible for God to exists and reappear to change his holy texts, it would be impossible for the Abrahamic holy texts [which originally is very primal and primitive based] to be changed and thus that limit their evolution.
Thus the solution in the future [not practical now] 75-100 years from now, it would be wise to wean off the Abrahamic religions gradually.
In contrast note the Kalama Sutra;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta
Note the flexibility of Buddhism from the Dalai Lama
Eventually organized Buddhism will also give way to generic spirituality in dealing with the fundamental unavoidable existential dilemma.
The ‘flexibility of Buddhism’ produced the backwardness of Tibet.
Every country with Buddhism has been scientifically, technologically and intellectually stagnant.
I agree to a certain extent there is no significant expansion of science and technology in Buddhist dominant countries but not intellectually in the spiritual perspective. Buddhism [besides the practical] has the highest level of intellectual philosophy and logic which is higher than any Western Philosophy [except Kant]. These sources came from India, China, probably [Kashmir, Afghanistan, Nepal, Tibet, etc.] and even Indonesia (Sumatra)
Btw, it is not Buddhism’s main purpose to promote Science and Technology. The plus point is, Buddhism whilst do not promote, it also do not hinder Science and technology. On the other hand, the Abrahamic religions do specifically limit/hinder Science and Technology. This is why we have Creationism to counter Evolution, the counter against cloning, stem cell research, etc.
Whilst there are advancements in Science and Technology in the Christian and Islamic communities in some eras of history, this is not directly due to the religions themselves, but rather due to the inherent progressive elements of human nature and being human. This is why there is no consistency in the progress of Science and Technologies within Christian and Islamic communities around the world.
Buddhism [and others Eastern religions] meanwhile has great potential in their dynamism to complete spirituality with modern Scientific knowledge and technology. Here is how one famous Scientist see Buddhism,
Eventually I see Buddhism evolving to be a type of generic spirituality and combining with other positive spirituality to be a universal spirituality without being a specific religion. I don’t agree with any of the Eastern Religions as organized religions. There are full of scandals and evils committed religious monks and those in authorities who abused their position. At most they should merely maintain an organization to maintain and sustain their teachings for a relevant period of time.
I note you like throw in counters merely for countering sake, but they all lack the necessary depth. I think you get a greater payoff if you take my points optimistically and research into them in details, in greater depth and verify them yourself.