Why do I say words are not important

You don't always think when making decisions.
You don't think to breathe, nor do you command your digestive systems.
But you can control your breathing by thought, and you can be in touch with your digestive system by staying still.
You may not be able to do too much, but there's also the myths about saints being able to control their energy flows etc. I'm not taking this as fact, but I can see a point to it.

But mainly, you don't always think before doing something. At the simplest level, you have reflexes. But also, sometimes you just place your pencil on the bed, even though you want to keep it on the table.
You may repeat the same mistake several times. So that means you do not always have control over your thoughts.

Often we practice following routines to shape our reflexes. Now that still doesn't address how we react to situations.
Do we always act precisely as we have thought about it?
Many times, we think precisely about the course of action for a long time

So even as so called thinking people, our actions are barely dictated by thought, but when it comes to religion, fear keeps us in check.
Now I'd say it's good to understand consequences to actions and shape our reactions to prevent it, such as learning to not scratch an itch for a long time and tear the skin.
But, thoughts by itself are meaningless, and are simply an attempt to regulate one's feelings. However, it is feelings that regulate the flow of our lives.
All religion does is, hence, align one's feelings to the ways of the religion.

In this manner, the natural feelings are seen as flawed, and are regulated to a single standard.
But I would say the natural feelings are the real way of life, however, it is not conductive to living as a civilization.
Having been in an army school, the natural way of humans is to wear sandals or sneakers outdoors, but it would be improper by the rules of an army school.

The core idea of religion

The core idea is to establish order in coexistence.
The existence of a god and afterlife was the only way people could find meaning in their lives.
Saying that god will punish one would then make people do

This can clearly be understood, because a common argument by a faithful person is that god's ways are the true ways, and hence you know deep down that you feel wrong about
whatever you are doing, that isn't allowed by the bible (LGBTQIA+, for example). But the reality is that, the so called wrong feeling is most likely due to the aligning of
the believer's beliefs to the culture which is predominantly religious, and even a non-Christian would feel that way at first due to the culture around them, and because
their parents at a young age taught them certain behaviours were bad.

This is also why many people say that non-religious behaviour is due to parents not disciplining their children, and it is hard to correct them at a later stage, because they
are corrupted beyond repair. But in reality, they are simply free from external influence, and have grown up as natural beings. The only corruption I would say is that members
of a civilized society thinking that natural entities, such as animals, trees, etc. are inferior to the civilized humans. But the truth is that even if humans would understand
their biology and invent new chemical diets and artificial atmosphere, up until now, their very existence was dependent on their natural habitat, on the shoulders of which they stand on while devaluing it. (That's not to say religions are bad for this, it's more of a problem with civilizations.) This is also why people insult others by calling
them animals, because animals are wild and uncivilized, and uncivilized would mean bandit-like behaviour, which is immoral. That is, bandits steal and hurt people because they
are wild, and hence people believe that such people will go to hell in the afterlife, because nothing can justify such an evil person getting away peacefully in life. (But I can ask 3 questions:
1) isn't this just one's desire to punish another for what they believe is wrong;
2) wasn't the life of the bandit, by which he saw no option or interest for peace,itself a justification for his crimes? Of course, he didn't follow the laws of the civilization, but neither did he claim to be in it, and probably he didn't even know of such a thing as a civilization in the first place. Perhaps he thought civilizations don't really work and people are simply at odds with nature; and
3) why didn't the god punish him while he was here on earth, and why did he wait for the afterlife? Had he established this so called justice in life, we wouldn't have any need for a hell in the afterlife. If one were to talk about free will, won't this apply to the afterlife too, where god's laws have to be followed rather than enjoy what one finds pleasurable? And if the pleasures of afterlife are different from the pleasures of heaven, haven't we turned into a different being? And if instead the pleasures are the same, then it should be that the other people and their behaviours are different in this world. But that would still be a different world from the one we wished for. That is why Abrahamic religions say that the purpose of life is to please the creator god, and nothing more, and your desires are all flawed before the greater desires of god. This is unacceptable to a person with free thought, neither is it acceptable behaviour for a creator of a being with free thought, if we consider our society. Some people who don't believe in peaceful existence of the society, such as bandits who haven't had the realization of peaceful coexistence, or corrupted and power-hungry people who believed that society would never cooperate, would consider enslaving their creations to work for them, just as they mass produce chickens in factories for meat. But they are simply
examples of people not using their gift of intelligence, and their behaviour is not justifiable for a person who is capable of thought and understanding.)

Now, what a non-beliver thinks is not what the faithful person has in mind. An atheist does not think he can simply enjoy the lavish pleasures of life while knowing it's wrong, but believing there's no one to see him. In other words, he doesn't believe robbery is right because he can get away with it. He simply thinks that the ways of god as people call it is immoral and unnatural, and if god was to implement such laws, he can be nothing more than a narcissist, and hence even faced with the prospect of torture, he would not back off from his true feelings of morality, because that is far worse than surrendering to the will of an evil person to reap their benefits, while he punishes innocent people for acting in the ways to get relieve themselves from the ways in which he made them to suffer. Also, he would believe that if there was a just creator, he
would not do such a thing, because he would know what he created people as. Even then, he may have trouble believing there even is a just creator, because he can't explain the
problems in the world. He would feel that if there was a just god, he would let this happen. And also, his feelings would have trouble in believing that there is an unjust god. So he'd more naturally say this was invented by people to project their ideas to control others' behaviours, but he may not know why they do that. This is why some people
think religious people are evil and corrupt.

So I personally don't believe that religion is mere corruption, but is a well-intended approach to regulating the civilization and maintaining peace, in a world where there is so much disagreement and lack of peace due to the same.

However, I should then say that in reality, this order should be brought about by slow and careful discussion about the aspects of life; and even if some people are not
willing to discard the idea of a creator, at least they could discuss with others to understand the true nature of a just creator, because people are being hurt in it's name.
Not to say that this hasn't been done, but what's been done can still be done better, by realizing the importance of slowing down. And also, people could come to an agreement
about what different people believe, so that any extremism in the name of thinking of some people as evil can be eliminated, and the others can live peacefully, even without
believing the same things. For example, one need not believe that a person who calls themselves a trans-woman is a trans-woman, and instead think they are a male, but by seeing them as person with feelings, they can refer to them as a trans-woman because that's what they feel happy about. The key point is that them believing so is not part
of a movement that exists to destroy your culture, but rather, it is an expression of their identity. What it does do is prevent you from controlling the entire world with your culture, because the world is not a place for you or your ideas alone.