So I am Here with My first Question

[Angrboda]

I never saw Theravada Buddhism as a "faith." One could even say that the first three Noble Truths are a logical statement.

pemise 1: life is suffering

premise 2: suffering comes from attachment

conclusion: Therefore, to be free from suffering, one must be free from attachment.

Something like that, anyway...

All Buddhisms posit a unique metaphysics and a psychology, as well as a science consisting of rituals posited to help one bring one's self interests and actions in accord with the reality of those metaphysical postulates and psychological realities. They typically have origin stories as well, and myths. I'm thinking back to Ninian Smart's seven dimensions of religion and noting that most of the Buddhisms that I am familiar with, including Theravada Buddhism, check a lot of those boxes. I haven't made a full analysis or done a full count of how many, but at first blush, it seems that even Theravada Buddhism is likely to qualify as a religion on an assessment on those criteria. If you have another set of criteria, a problem with this criteria set, or a preference for some other metric, I'll need further information regarding that.

In response to your later post, regarding the possibility that Buddhism, even the minimalist subset you seem to be postulating, could be demonstrated to accord with reality, I have severe doubts. I say this because I have analysis of the questions which the four noble truths address which leads to a different conclusion, and basically says that not only are the four noble truths not necessarily true, but most likely wrong. I may post those thoughts at some later date, but it will suffice to note that your conclusion is not necessarily solid.

"Banish all dogmas! We will of course banish this last dogma after we banish all the others."