There is no "I" in "You"

[Gemini]

Such is the mystique of the east, and the priorities of familiarity.  The claim that buddhism is not a religion can -also- be skewered by skeptics (though you don't need to be a skeptic to skewer that claim)...

I'm suggesting that what is true of the part may not be true of the whole.  Let's take your first pick - Nagarjuna.  Influential, in buddhist philosophy. That some portions of buddhist philosophy are more skeptical to you, by whatever metric you're using to determine that - does not make buddhism in the singular, or "eastern tradition" on the whole more skeptical than "western tradition".  I gave you Thales to show you that a western contemporary also proposed more skeptical viewpoints than some of his peers.  Both traditions have their moments and their mis-steps.  eastern thought...

No one claimed that it was a western project.  That's not all you -said-, or am I mistaken?  You said that the eastern tradition was more skeptical than western tradition...

The reason Buddhism came to dominate eastern philosophy is a very interesting question. The answer I would give is that it systematized aspects of the contemplative traditions that preceded it and replaced meditative practices that were focused on supernatural attainments with a meditative practice based on phenomenological observation (vipassana, literally, means "insight").

But anyway. If you insist that Buddhist philosophy can be skewered by skeptics, then prove it. Skewer it. Elucidate the absurdity of paticcasamuppada.

As for western philosophy having its share of skeptics, of course it does! It also has Aristotle hanging over it like an albatross, and eastern philosophy doesn't. For better or for worse, eastern philosophy has Nagarjuna. That alone should go a long way toward establishing eastern philosophical traditions as the more skeptical.