Only some Buddhists consider them needless. A very tiny minority who identify as "Buddhist" that are mostly confined to western countries and do not speak for the Sangha as a whole. Even those who may not understand the concepts literally, influenced by Buddhist Modernism, do not dismiss their spiritual utility altogether.
Secondly, the concept of the "supernatural" is a Christian category that doesn't apply to Buddhist cosmology.
I never said I spoke for all Buddhists, pretty sure I insinuated the opposite
And I'm also pretty sure the idea of supernatural applies to some Buddhist ideas, even if the idea is that they're immanent rather than transcendent, seeing as Buddhism is nondualistic, while Christianity would tend to be dualistic. Supernatural as a term might be slightly inaccurate, but the general idea conveyed would still be there, that it's not only unscientific, but magical thinking.
That's a gross oversimplification and misunderstanding, but one that is frequently spread a meme among those who are ignorant of the subject. Quakers (who generally consider themselves to be Christians, at least in the US) do not believe in seeking salvation externally, because the Inner Light is, well... inner. Likewise, there are forms of Buddhism that believe in tariki or "Other Power" as the primary praxis of their sect or school, even though their metaphysical and epistemological commitments are Buddhist.
Yes, I'm aware of Pure Land Buddhism and there are likely some others, but I'm speaking in generalities as a rough distinction in the first place, not necessarily applying to all. The fact that I didn't use a qualifier doesn't mean I'm speaking absolutely.
And even Quakers are arguably seeking salvation from something instead of liberation from wrong thinking, though certainly there can be overlap, much like common parallels of thought in Buddhism and Christianity in general.
It's not your place to define a religion that is practiced by hundreds of millions of people, many of whom may not agree with your narrow definition of what is, and is not, proper Buddhism.
Not sure I remotely was doing that or where you got the idea I was, because I was correcting ideas that are not even applicable to most Buddhists and thus are engaging in that problematic generalization I never argued was a good thing
Many Buddhists actually do, contrary to your insinuations. It's not nonsense. Buddhists take refuge in the Buddha and they pay their respects to him as a teacher, and in most contexts that involves veneration, both of his manifestation on earth in the form of Shakyamuni, and also in the form of the Buddha that transcends his earthly appearance (the Nirmanakaya and Dharmakaya).
Veneration is not worship, this is practically common sense, seeing as you have that distinction made by Catholics: they don't worship Mary or Peter or such, they venerate them as examples to follow. But the idea of taking refuge in the Buddha is not comparable to any notions of adoration or worship directed at Jesus and God. And that's primarily because Buddha is not saving you from anything, that's your responsibility first and foremost, Buddha Gautama offered advice at most.
