My understanding is that for something to become "religious" as opposed to "philosophical", it tends to need more of a metaphysical/spiritual aspect to it - that is to say, it needs to concern events or matters beyond the physical Universe. Hence, Buddhism falls under the ambit of religion (just about) because its teachings have concepts such as reincarnation, nirvana and samsara which should they exist would do so outside of the physical framework of the Universe. Philosophy, in contrast, tends to take its basis from the physical framework of the Universe and events contained therein and then develop from there - so to take your example, your world view is developed from experience in this Universe and this life, as opposed to taking its basis from something which may or may not exist transcendent of the Universe. Even if it contains moral aspects, it's still based on what happens here so is philosophical rather than religious. To take another example, the "cult of Stalin" has been classed as having religious traits in some circles, but again as the focus of its attention is on the events in the physical Universe (specifically one man) it's philosophical.
I should say that all of that is purely based on my understanding, and for all I know it could be a load of cobblers.
But that has been how I understand the distinction, and it seems to account for things like Buddhism contrasted with other philosophies quite well. Ultimately, it's all a question of where one chooses to draw the line.