It also makes it a fairly fuzzy target, since at at any time someone might invoke but <criticism> does not apply to <placeholder religion>, therefore it's not really an argument against religion per se and i dismiss it entirely
Exhaustive, lawyer-proof arguments are fairly tedious. Obviously some generalizations and shortcuts are taken.
The "my imaginary deity" argument was (hopefully) meant as criticism regarding institutionalized denial of truth to uphold supernatural aspects and claims to power for various religions.
Creation mythologies don't just have a bonding function, they may also serve as a justification for monarchy or caste systems if some people are descended from/treated preferentially by some aspect of that creation. X's chosen people.
Of course religions did fulfill social roles, as glue for people who needed answers for things that could not be answered at the time. And maybe they still do to some extent to this day. But that shouldn't keep anyone from highlighting anachronistic aspects.
If it doesn't make any unverifiable claims about the supernatural, then by all means remove it from the "religions" category and add it to "philosophy".
That tree includes Confucianism, for instance. Although it's considered a religion, it's secular and closer to philosophy.
Most religions are also mixed with creation mythologies, which have a bonding function inside cultures and ethnic groups.
So, the `religion` subject is much more complex than a simple pissing contest.