Huh. I've never heard that definition of causality before. Causality like a string of dominoes, each one knock the next one over, each event causes the next, then yeah. Everyone has different gods though.
No doubt.
But the point I'd like to make is this: belief in a god, or spirits, is the same as belief in causality in that 1) each belief is used to interpret experinece and 2)the justification for each belief rests not on sense datum alone, but on their ability to provide a meaningful interpretation of experience.
E.g., when you see a line of dominoes falling, you could interpret that experience in many ways. It could be that as one domino falls it bumps the next one, causing it to fall too. It could be that a breeze is pushing them all down (maybe no domino has enough mass/velocity to knock the next over on its own?). Maybe the dominoes are alive, (or at least self-moving), and falling on their own power?
The interpretations above assume causality, but if causality weren't necessary, it could be the case that one domino falls, and then the next falls, but the fact that they fall in order and close together in time is just a coincidence.
Must we refer to causality to meaningfully interpret our experience, or is causality just another imaginary friend that we've no epistemic right to believe in?
There's no enforcing, or spreading through enforcing, of beliefs. Take what you want, reject what you will. Rather like Buddhism (which is erroneously thought of as a religion). It's just a set of principles which people take and use to enhance their lives.
Meh.
You take the view point of being a nihilst, a philosophical belief. Well, so long as you hold everyone and everything in contempt, including yourself, no harm! 
