Well if that's the case then Buddhism is pretty bad at it. It teaches that you have no self even when you are alive, much less after death.
It also does not promise reincarnation either, but rebirth, which is kind of an impersonal process.
Buddhism is remarkably compatible with the modern scientific view that the universe has neither purpose nor personality. Once you throw away the anthropocentric Judeo-Christian mindset, you are left with no external, authoritative source of purpose. Many people struggle to find an alternate source of purpose, either within themselves or in something else. This can be very stressful. Buddhism relieves you by teaching you that you don't need to try so hard, you don't even need to "be yourself". It's a strangely attractive proposition.
Granted, like any belief system people are free to pick and choose if they want, but we don't base our judgement of a belief system's "religiousness" on people who have chosen the very least amount.
Oh really, and why not?
Maybe some of us do know what it's like...
One could argue that "the very least amount" correlates roughly with Theravada buddhism which bases its practices on a set of very early talks given by the buddha that are believed to be the core teachings.
There are a _lot_ of theravada buddhists in the world, so you could say that many have chosen "the least amount".
Why do you come to HN if not to discuss things? Should we exchange credentials before being allowed to discuss things?
[1] http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/582/861/e26...