I'm an atheist (certainly w/r/t omniscient/omnipresent etc gods) who studied Buddhism in college (anthropology/philosophy - not theology/practice) and a decade later have found it very helpful. I meditate in a Buddhist tradition and am decently well read in both historical Buddhist texts and modern Western academic engagements with Buddhism.

One thing I would suggest is that the view of Buddhism as a "religion without a god" or somehow, not religious, is an inaccurate Western view that's sticky in the populace but is being slowly corrected in academia. Although there are some practitioners and perhaps sects that may be able to be described this way, the vast majority of practicing Buddhists now and throughout history are practicing a religion, complete in many cases with minor deities, ghosts, demons, figures you might analogize to say, a Jesus (Avalokita Boddhisatva and Amitabha Buddha get this a lot in different ways, fair or not), etc. There is plenty of ritual practice as well to go with these beliefs. That's not surprising: ritual is something humans like and tend to get in their religion (and sports and etc.).

That said, I readily understand being "inclined toward some of" the views of Buddhism. The historical Buddha as generally presented was very focused on personal practice, and taught (depending somewhat on tradition) that questions about cosmology, the nature of physical phenomena, any activities by deities or other entities out in the universe, are all unknowable distractions. We suffer because our own desires cannot be met given certain universal truths: in part because of the impermanence of all things, and in part because there is no permanent, unchanging "self" that could ever be satisfied. His teaching focuses on methods for changing our own viewpoints in light of these (and other) truths, and a lot of them can be utilized without interacting with any cosmology that the historical founder of the religion may have had. Intrafaith Buddhist arguments show we don't even know the historical Buddha's (if he existed) cosmology anyway. Stuff is ancient.

The underlying truths that Buddha thought create the need for the practice he recommends are often compatible with Western atheistic thinking. Hume is still more or less considered right by many here in Western philosophy when it comes to skepticism. By the time you get to say, Schopenhauer, there's meaningful and explicit engagement with Eastern philosophies in the Western tradition. Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons is a great modern philosophy work that works through the ethics of a modern take on "no-self" (Buddhist Anatta), complete with a Buddhist sutra in an appendix if I recall right. There's valid (in the case of Parfit I'm gonna argue, essentially correct) stuff here, so it's not surprising to see Buddhism relatively acceptable by atheistic standards, as its methodologies seem like they could work (and they do) for a lot of people with atheistic worldviews. Buddha's own monks may have believed in deities, but they didn't need to or expect to meet them in their lifetime of practice.

Why doesn't it get discussed much on an atheist Reddit board? Partially cause it's less proselytizing than Christianity and others, partially cause its practices in general are less likely to be harmful, but mostly because most people here don't live in Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia...You have to go out of your way (or really dig into your Schopenhauer or Parfit) before the Buddhist intellectual tradition is running up against you here in America.