Yes, as far as some schools of thought support irreligion, that I surely don't consider as nonsense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_India#C%C4%81rv%...

E.g. The followers of Cārvāka school "only accepted pratyakşa (perception) as a valid pramāna (evidence)." They were Buddhism's competitors in the times and areas of its initial development. "Thus, the existence of a soul (ātman) and God were rejected, because they could not be proved by perception." OK. But then: "They also considered everything to be made of four elements: earth, water, air and fire." So the whole still reflect the understanding of the people in the times in which it developed. Well at least they rejected the existence of a soul and god.

Also "Jainism and Buddhism consider atheism to be acceptable." Very good.

But I still make a difference between the religious claims and some irreligious teachings of some schools of thought. Studying that context, Buddhism isn't the most successful in not having nonsense, as it was also a product of the compromises in the times in which it developed (as in, moving more "to the middle" in the spectrum between Cārvāka and the opposite extremes), and the later developments were often in the direction of the religion and ritual.

If somebody can be less attacked by some religious fanatics if claiming that he's simply a Buddhist, I support his/her choice fully. The same way, in the areas occupied by one more recent religion, remaining Christian but acknowledging the supremacy of that newer religion sometimes, but not always, "protected" one from being slaughtered, which also saved many
(but that state is never stable, following even the most recent news). I'm surely against any religion claiming its own supremacy and the right to oppress all who aren't their flock.

Also kindly note that I never wrote what you put under the quotes, namely, that "all religions only promote complete nonsnese" -- that's your construction, trying to create a straw man which could be more easily attacked. You disagree with a statement I have never made. Good. But please don't claim it's mine. "Only" is not how I talk about it. Of course, the religious texts and stories also repeat some non-religious messages, which often reflect "common sense" or some practical experiences or provide some useful ideas in approaching some specific problems, and there's what could be learned from these.

Personally I deeply enjoy reading the texts of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuang_Zhou (around 4th century BC). They are so much more satisfying and to me aesthetically pleasing than any in the western world more famous texts written for the religious purposes and therefore more present in people’s minds. I can only recommend Zhuang Zhou. I also thoroughly enjoy works of Homer (8th or 7th century BC) the appearance of gods there as the personified anger or wisdom or lust or the forces of nature are also extremely artistically and intellectually pleasing. We humans do personify everything what we see around us, and on that level, I surely don't have any problem enjoying these stories. The Odyssey is an exceptional work of art, including the acts of all the gods doing what they are doing there. On that level, I claim I believe more in the "gods" of Odyssey than in any other. I surely enjoy when Zeus is mighty, but when he is in Egypt collecting sacrifices, he doesn't have time to help the warriors in Troy which he supports. That's so human and much more easy to relate to, and to believe why he doesn't always "do good." Obviously, he is distracted, and Hera had time to support the warriors she liked! She even distracted him with sex sometimes, if I remember correctly. Pure joy. And when we’re by ancient texts, Gligamesh (2000 years BC) is also a work of geniuses. Written before Bible was written, includes some myths later retold in the Bible, but again still in the form and in the context much more humane than the variants that follow.