There is no "I" in "You"

[The Grand Nudger]

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").

Still -ish- but, but I'd point to decidedly less academic circumstances and pressures to explain the dominance of buddhism/when where it dominated.  We'd be talking history, at that point, not philosophy.
(which is also what I'd point to to explain the persistence and dominance of many of the less skeptical branches of western philosophy - there's a surprising amount of similarity between the death of cavarkism in the eastern tradition and the hiatus of the more skeptical western traditions..in that both were suppressed, vociferously - by the adherants of a loosely aligned set of more culturally and politically powerful paradigms.)

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

I didn't insist that -at all-.....but of course it can be - que karma, again. I can bring up a handful of examples from buddhist philosophy alone..and we'll barely have scratched the surface of eastern philosophy and the many "less than skeptical" positions contained in a field much larger than the subset of buddhist traditions which you find acceptable for consideration would imply.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_philosophy

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.

Eastern philosophy also has those luminaries which gifted us with all of the non-skeptical aspects of eastern philosophy that you would separate from those aspects you feel are more skeptical. If you're going to continue to measure the size of each traditions skeptical peen, by reference to a single sub-division of the tradition, and even then only a specific set of that "buddhist philosophy but not the weird shit"..I'll eventually -have- to remind you that science and rational empiricism are also branches of western philosophy. Compare apples to apples....and you'll find that you'll have to constantly say "but not all the magical shit" in support of your position.... whereas I'll simply say "what magical shit?".

All you seem to be trying to establish is that western philosophy has/had it's crazies. Agreed. So does eastern philosophy, but when I bring it up you tell me that's not the eastern philosophy you're talking about. Counting the hits, ignoring the misses. Something tells me these metrics are hopelessly skewed. I get that you find some aspects of some eastern traditions more skeptical than some aspects of some western traditions. So do I. It's just an awfully grandiose leap from there to any comment about the overall skepticism of either tradition as a whole. I wouldn't go the other direction with it either, and claim that the western tradition is more skeptical than the eastern tradition -for all of the reasons I've mentioned to you.

There's nothing particularly skeptical about paticcasamuppada, you realize? Just an aside, not entirely relevant.

Paticca-samuppada, ( Pali: “dependent origination”) Sanskrit pratitya-samutpada, the chain, or law, of dependent origination, or the chain of causation—a fundamental concept of Buddhism describing the causes of suffering (dukkha; Sanskrit duhkha) and the course of events that lead a being through rebirth, old age, and death.)

....come again?
http://www.britannica.com/topic/paticca-samuppada

It doesn't stop there, though, reading through that elaboration there are more than just a few wtf moments for a skeptic. I'm guessing you weren't looking for any elucidation on the absurdity (or suprising -lack- of skepticism) on all of that. You have some other formulation in mind. Something with all of that scrubbed out, something closer to causal determinism in the western tradition, something more syncretic......yeah? -Just- as your formulation of anatta was the scrubbed, syncretic version. I'm neither surprised, nor criticizing you for preferring those versions. They are the versions sold to the western audience - for obvious reasons.