It is true that the Buddha did not teach a doctrine of a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) who is responsible for the origin of the universe. Nor did the Buddha teach that pleasure and pain is due to a creator god. Suffice it to say, the doctrine of a creator god is by the Buddha put into the same category as those doctrines that deny karma or absolute determinism.
Does then mean that the Buddha was anti-religious because he rejected the doctrine of a creator god? No, because religion for the Indian mind, which is called “Dharma” is much different and broader than the modern, narrow concept of religion which is about worshiping and serving God.
I hasten to add that there is no animosity on the part of the Buddha towards the Vedic tradition which moderns would consider to be religious. Truth be told, Buddhists were greatly opposed to materialism and seemed only to want to reform the ancient Vedic tradition as it was spiritually centered as was Buddhism.
This takes me to a pet peeve of mine that Westerners who practice Buddhism tend to be for the most part anti-religious who also lean more to materialism. Some, I have observed over the years, don’t like the Buddhist idea of karma or rebirth, for example, nor are they comfortable with any kind of absolute which they take to be the same as believing in God. For me, such people are missing the core of Buddhism, completely, all because of their prejudices. And I have not the patience to contend with their idiotic opinions. I would rather spend my time with people who are in sympathy with me because where I am coming from is a direct personal experience that others can have.