I think it is important her to delineate what is meant by "buddhism." The Dalai Lama leads a particular branch of tibetan, theravada buddhism.

I personally am an (agnostic) atheist, and also practice Zen Buddhism. Some branches of buddhism are very much "folk" religions (like christianity originally was) that incorporate gods and stuff. I like zen because it is a streamlined version of the actual mental/emotional self control and self acceptance practices that arise from meditation. It's great and does not require belief in supernatural powers, just an awareness of the present moment which can be honed through sitting.

As I stated earlier, I am an agnostic atheist. I like this perspective personally because I don't want to claim "[the christian] God does not exist" (I have no meaningful definition of god, nor has one ever been supplied) and instead want to claim "I don't believe in the existence of [the christian] God." Furthermore, I think that all too often atheism becomes so broadly understood that it rejects the foundations for a "spiritual" life in the process of denying the existence of any deity, which has its own drawbacks. I think that there are mysteries inherent to life and awareness that are best approached with a heuristic mindset- science is great, but you can't be a scientist all the time and sometimes you just have to do what works. But you also have to realize, and this is the crucial mistake that many religious people make but which I do not think the Dalai lama has made, that if your heuristic belief system is not as effective as it could be then you shouldn't cling to the old views and assumptions. Frankly, scientists, especially older ones, often make the same mistake and it slows down scientific advancement.

Defining what spirituality can be within the boundaries of a scientific perspective is of course a difficult endeavor, but it is one that can also be altogether separate from the endeavor of determining what one's beliefs with regard to the objective external existence of any "Gods" are.

In a related note, I recently adopted some aspects of the bhakti "loving devotion" yoga from hinduism into my spiritual practice. Ive been trying to improve my capacity to feel affection and care for myself and others. Bhakti yoga, in my understanding of it, is the practice of serving and worshipping a "personal" deity within hinduism. I've chosen Ganesha as mine. Now, I don't believe in the external objective existence of gods. i do however take a psychological perspective that "gods" have an internal existence- they are an alter, so to speak, sort of like a very quiet split personality that individual egos may use to prop up their belief system. When schizophrenics think they hear gods voice, they are really just hearing a voice their own biology produced internally and not recognizing its source as their self. With "Ganesha," i view it as an intentionally created symbol for an imaginary alter with allegorical stories associated- I picked Ganesha because i like certain symbolic aspects her possesses (he is the god of academics and artists, the protector of the "threshold" between success and failure, and the remover of obstacles and fear). I have no association with real hinduism, but I am comfortable with adopting aspects of it to help foster my spiritual development- also, to my understanding some elements of Hindu philosophy view a representation of a "god" as the actual embodiment of that being. I think that's cool, and run with that element in my understanding of Ganesha as a purely symbolic entity, a kind of conceptual technology almost. By "worshipping" Ganesha (the psychological symbol for the unknown aspects of my own subconscious and all the self-tendencies that are hidden from me, my own failures) I strive to remind myself to be all that I can be, to accept that I don't consciously have control over everything, to take time to observe beauty, foster respect for myself and others and as a general catch all for what ever a busy life makes me forget to take the time for. I don't need the Ganesha symbol to do such things, but it does serve as a useful marker when I'm feeling down, alone and overwhelmed that love, grace and wisdom do exist- and that I have felt them enough to link myself to them, in some kind of an indelible way. I figure as long as I practice this self-consciously and with a clear understanding of why and how the process works, it should be OK and not inconsistent with my belief in Atheism.

IDK, it's not a practice I would recommend for everyone- and it is certainly not right, nor necessary for everyone to be like me. I think what is important, however, is that we enrich each other by sharing our unique perspectives and take from each other, even those we disagree with, something of value after communicating. Knee jerk rejections do not foster wisdom, in my opinion.