I don't get Atheism

[Anonymous]

McLean atheist -- have you always been an atheist? By that I mean someone who was raised without religion or someone for whom religion never "took"? If so, you're rare, (right now, at least).

I know a few atheists like this and they often don't get the variations of belief that are out there. Some believers are pretty mellow -- I certainly was when I was a believer - not a bible thumper, not dogmatic, not really that committed - and I think there are a lot of people like that - not much different from an atheist except for a comforting, but vague overlay of faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McLean atheist -- have you always been an atheist? By that I mean someone who was raised without religion or someone for whom religion never "took"? If so, you're rare, (right now, at least).

I know a few atheists like this and they often don't get the variations of belief that are out there. Some believers are pretty mellow -- I certainly was when I was a believer - not a bible thumper, not dogmatic, not really that committed - and I think there are a lot of people like that - not much different from an atheist except for a comforting, but vague overlay of faith.

I was raised without religion. However, I remember in my early teens, laying awake at night, crying in fear that I would die and become nothing. I remember comforting myself by convincing myself that there is an afterlife, a heaven, and all my family would be there. That got me trough it and I would say that I kind of just avoided thinking about it any more, throughout college and my twenties.

After my first son was born, I felt a great lifting of this burden. The purpose of my existence at once became crystal clear, as well as what I must do. I still get a twinge of sadness when I think that I'll become nothing when I die, and the world will go on without me, but this is sadness and not fear.

Growing up in the US, I am surrounded by religious people, some more than others. My girlfriends all came from believing families, though as you say, some are more religious than others. I once dated a girl who sang in her church's choir. I've been invited to attend service in various denominations - I am still giddy about that time I took sacrament when the plate of crackers was passed in front of me. My host nudged me and said "don't eat it!" but it was too late.

What grew clearer with age is that religion doesn't make sense, and mild religion makes even less sense. To illustrate, lets grant that religion's claims are true, that there is a God or super power. If that's the case, then what's more important than ever lasting life after this one? How could any rational person not focus their entire lives on reaching this goal? Never mind any of our worldly desires and possessions, they are worthless! I would study the scriptures closely to learn the truth contained within. Anything in conflict with the revealed truth must be ignored or destroyed. What's more important than the truth that will deliver us to ever lasting life? Therefore, in this regard, I have far more respect for fundamentalists - at least they are honest with themselves and others about what they truly believe, and have the conviction to see things through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McLean atheist -- have you always been an atheist? By that I mean someone who was raised without religion or someone for whom religion never "took"? If so, you're rare, (right now, at least).

I know a few atheists like this and they often don't get the variations of belief that are out there. Some believers are pretty mellow -- I certainly was when I was a believer - not a bible thumper, not dogmatic, not really that committed - and I think there are a lot of people like that - not much different from an atheist except for a comforting, but vague overlay of faith.

I was raised without religion. However, I remember in my early teens, laying awake at night, crying in fear that I would die and become nothing. I remember comforting myself by convincing myself that there is an afterlife, a heaven, and all my family would be there. That got me trough it and I would say that I kind of just avoided thinking about it any more, throughout college and my twenties.

After my first son was born, I felt a great lifting of this burden. The purpose of my existence at once became crystal clear, as well as what I must do. I still get a twinge of sadness when I think that I'll become nothing when I die, and the world will go on without me, but this is sadness and not fear.

Growing up in the US, I am surrounded by religious people, some more than others. My girlfriends all came from believing families, though as you say, some are more religious than others. I once dated a girl who sang in her church's choir. I've been invited to attend service in various denominations - I am still giddy about that time I took sacrament when the plate of crackers was passed in front of me. My host nudged me and said "don't eat it!" but it was too late.

What grew clearer with age is that religion doesn't make sense, and mild religion makes even less sense. To illustrate, lets grant that religion's claims are true, that there is a God or super power. If that's the case, then what's more important than ever lasting life after this one? How could any rational person not focus their entire lives on reaching this goal? Never mind any of our worldly desires and possessions, they are worthless! I would study the scriptures closely to learn the truth contained within. Anything in conflict with the revealed truth must be ignored or destroyed. What's more important than the truth that will deliver us to ever lasting life? Therefore, in this regard, I have far more respect for fundamentalists - at least they are honest with themselves and others about what they truly believe, and have the conviction to see things through.

I was with you until you said: "I have far more respect for fundamentalists - at least they are honest with themselves and others about what they truly believe, and have the conviction to see things through."

They may be firm in their beliefs, but many of their beliefs are in conflict with modern science - not good. And fundamentalists believe they should impose their beliefs on others.

Also, I'd say you are too hung up on the scriptures (much the way fundamentalists are). Liberal Christians may go overboard in interpreting the Bible to mean whatever they want it to mean, but truly, there is a lot of Biblical scholarship out there, written by seminary professors (not apologists) that indicates that much of the Bible was not meant to be taken literally.

[Anonymous]

Everyone is born atheist. What's not to get?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I was with you until you said: "I have far more respect for fundamentalists - at least they are honest with themselves and others about what they truly believe, and have the conviction to see things through."

They may be firm in their beliefs, but many of their beliefs are in conflict with modern science - not good. And fundamentalists believe they should impose their beliefs on others.

Also, I'd say you are too hung up on the scriptures (much the way fundamentalists are). Liberal Christians may go overboard in interpreting the Bible to mean whatever they want it to mean, but truly, there is a lot of Biblical scholarship out there, written by seminary professors (not apologists) that indicates that much of the Bible was not meant to be taken literally.

Well, the fundamentalists have chosen their side, their religion over everything else. This is what religion teaches and they have followed it. They are honest about it with themselves and others. Now you say that much of the bible was not meant to be taken literally. But with that, you've revealed religion to be hollow and completely artificial, because now you have no foundation on which to base your practice. For example if the religion you believe in claims that Christ died and was resurrected, which conflicts with modern science in a very real sense, do you discount this as a "not meant to be taken literally?" If that's the case then what really happened? if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then what proof is there that he is the son of God? If he never died in the first place, then how are the sinners of this world redeemed? Was there even a person named Jesus? And if there wasn't....

Where do we draw the line between facts/reality, and teachings/parables?

If no one knows for sure, how can you practice that as a religion, which requires a specific system of belief at its very foundation.

So given the above, while I don't find any religion to be valid or convincing, at least I can appreciate the mindset of the fundamentalist believers.

McLeanAthiest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I was with you until you said: "I have far more respect for fundamentalists - at least they are honest with themselves and others about what they truly believe, and have the conviction to see things through."

They may be firm in their beliefs, but many of their beliefs are in conflict with modern science - not good. And fundamentalists believe they should impose their beliefs on others.

Also, I'd say you are too hung up on the scriptures (much the way fundamentalists are). Liberal Christians may go overboard in interpreting the Bible to mean whatever they want it to mean, but truly, there is a lot of Biblical scholarship out there, written by seminary professors (not apologists) that indicates that much of the Bible was not meant to be taken literally.

Well, the fundamentalists have chosen their side, their religion over everything else. This is what religion teaches and they have followed it. They are honest about it with themselves and others. Now you say that much of the bible was not meant to be taken literally. But with that, you've revealed religion to be hollow and completely artificial, because now you have no foundation on which to base your practice. For example if the religion you believe in claims that Christ died and was resurrected, which conflicts with modern science in a very real sense, do you discount this as a "not meant to be taken literally?" If that's the case then what really happened? if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then what proof is there that he is the son of God? If he never died in the first place, then how are the sinners of this world redeemed? Was there even a person named Jesus? And if there wasn't....

Where do we draw the line between facts/reality, and teachings/parables?

If no one knows for sure, how can you practice that as a religion, which requires a specific system of belief at its very foundation.

So given the above, while I don't find any religion to be valid or convincing, at least I can appreciate the mindset of the fundamentalist believers.

McLeanAthiest

Please consider that you are making assumptions. Many Fundamentalists have not "chosen" their side -- they were indoctrinated into it as children and stay with it out of fear of eternal damnation. Others chose it as adults because they were effectively scared into thinking embracing such beliefs was their only hope for eternal life.

Also some religions don't require a specific "system" of belief. Instead they are very fuzzy. You can pretty much believe what you want. They totally accept science. The religion part doesn't interfere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I was with you until you said: "I have far more respect for fundamentalists - at least they are honest with themselves and others about what they truly believe, and have the conviction to see things through."

They may be firm in their beliefs, but many of their beliefs are in conflict with modern science - not good. And fundamentalists believe they should impose their beliefs on others.

Also, I'd say you are too hung up on the scriptures (much the way fundamentalists are). Liberal Christians may go overboard in interpreting the Bible to mean whatever they want it to mean, but truly, there is a lot of Biblical scholarship out there, written by seminary professors (not apologists) that indicates that much of the Bible was not meant to be taken literally.

Well, the fundamentalists have chosen their side, their religion over everything else. This is what religion teaches and they have followed it. They are honest about it with themselves and others. Now you say that much of the bible was not meant to be taken literally. But with that, you've revealed religion to be hollow and completely artificial, because now you have no foundation on which to base your practice. For example if the religion you believe in claims that Christ died and was resurrected, which conflicts with modern science in a very real sense, do you discount this as a "not meant to be taken literally?" If that's the case then what really happened? if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then what proof is there that he is the son of God? If he never died in the first place, then how are the sinners of this world redeemed? Was there even a person named Jesus? And if there wasn't....

Where do we draw the line between facts/reality, and teachings/parables?

If no one knows for sure, how can you practice that as a religion, which requires a specific system of belief at its very foundation.

So given the above, while I don't find any religion to be valid or convincing, at least I can appreciate the mindset of the fundamentalist believers.

McLeanAthiest

I think you're way off track here. The most common belief is that salvation through Christ is the solution to many of the rules of the Old Testament. Belief and salvation are the post-Christ replacement for the sacrifice and ceremony aspects. The fundamentalists still selectively follow parts of the Old Testament. There are very few denominations that encourage women to cover their hair. Christians eat pork. They don't strictly observe the Sabbath. They don't sacrifice animals. They don't follow what it says about slavery, war or marriage. Those are just a few things.

Not only was I raised as a hardcore fundamentalist, I have spent years studying religions. I can see you've given it all some thought, but your understanding of Christianity is very limited. If I had the choice, I'd prefer not to have the level of knowledge that comes from total immersion in fundamentalism.

-another atheist

[Anonymous]

One more thing to add. I have found that Christians can basically be put into 2 categories. There are the ones who use religion to feel superior, and there are those who have the conviction and desire to do service through Christ. The denomination (even the religion) don't really matter. You'll find a mix of both in every congregation in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I was with you until you said: "I have far more respect for fundamentalists - at least they are honest with themselves and others about what they truly believe, and have the conviction to see things through."

They may be firm in their beliefs, but many of their beliefs are in conflict with modern science - not good. And fundamentalists believe they should impose their beliefs on others.

Also, I'd say you are too hung up on the scriptures (much the way fundamentalists are). Liberal Christians may go overboard in interpreting the Bible to mean whatever they want it to mean, but truly, there is a lot of Biblical scholarship out there, written by seminary professors (not apologists) that indicates that much of the Bible was not meant to be taken literally.

Well, the fundamentalists have chosen their side, their religion over everything else. This is what religion teaches and they have followed it. They are honest about it with themselves and others. Now you say that much of the bible was not meant to be taken literally. But with that, you've revealed religion to be hollow and completely artificial, because now you have no foundation on which to base your practice. For example if the religion you believe in claims that Christ died and was resurrected, which conflicts with modern science in a very real sense, do you discount this as a "not meant to be taken literally?" If that's the case then what really happened? if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then what proof is there that he is the son of God? If he never died in the first place, then how are the sinners of this world redeemed? Was there even a person named Jesus? And if there wasn't....

Where do we draw the line between facts/reality, and teachings/parables?

If no one knows for sure, how can you practice that as a religion, which requires a specific system of belief at its very foundation.

So given the above, while I don't find any religion to be valid or convincing, at least I can appreciate the mindset of the fundamentalist believers.

McLeanAthiest

Please consider that you are making assumptions. Many Fundamentalists have not "chosen" their side -- they were indoctrinated into it as children and stay with it out of fear of eternal damnation. Others chose it as adults because they were effectively scared into thinking embracing such beliefs was their only hope for eternal life.

Also some religions don't require a specific "system" of belief. Instead they are very fuzzy. You can pretty much believe what you want. They totally accept science. The religion part doesn't interfere.

I find your reasoning ironic. What is the basis of religion if not fear and indoctrination? You think any of the moderate Christians woke up one day and said "oh, I think I'll choose Christianity" like making a choice of which brand of yogurt to buy at the store after reading the labels? Moderate Christians likely are Christians because of family or social context, not some personal innate sense of spirituality that drove them there.

Now the part about choice, even if one is indoctrinated while young, once you grow up and become educated, you absolutely have to make a choice between the facts of modern science and the claims of religion. There is no shortage of well educated, intelligent people who are also deeply religious and are fundamentalists - see how many people still believe in the young earth theory because that's the choice they've made even though science has taught them differently.

With regards to religion and its requirement for a system of belief, look up the definition of religion?

“A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe.”

You cannot have a religion without organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views. Now, no one says you can't go on having fuzzy feelings about beliefs, but that's not religion. Call it something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why?

I'm 23 and supposedly most my age aren't religious, but I don't understand how you can just say you don't believe in God anymore? Do you think you're more intelligent because you're an Atheist? I'm pretty free thinking myself, so I obviously don't let religion influence my thinking. So what is it about Atheism that is appealing to you all?

As explained by Bertrand Russell, the Occam's razor principle means that "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."

That's why I tend to trust science and evidence-based knowledge more than gremlims, leprechauns, gods...or their prophets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, the fundamentalists have chosen their side, their religion over everything else. This is what religion teaches and they have followed it. They are honest about it with themselves and others. Now you say that much of the bible was not meant to be taken literally. But with that, you've revealed religion to be hollow and completely artificial, because now you have no foundation on which to base your practice. For example if the religion you believe in claims that Christ died and was resurrected, which conflicts with modern science in a very real sense, do you discount this as a "not meant to be taken literally?" If that's the case then what really happened? if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then what proof is there that he is the son of God? If he never died in the first place, then how are the sinners of this world redeemed? Was there even a person named Jesus? And if there wasn't....

Where do we draw the line between facts/reality, and teachings/parables?

If no one knows for sure, how can you practice that as a religion, which requires a specific system of belief at its very foundation.

So given the above, while I don't find any religion to be valid or convincing, at least I can appreciate the mindset of the fundamentalist believers.

McLeanAthiest

I think you're way off track here. The most common belief is that salvation through Christ is the solution to many of the rules of the Old Testament. Belief and salvation are the post-Christ replacement for the sacrifice and ceremony aspects. The fundamentalists still selectively follow parts of the Old Testament. There are very few denominations that encourage women to cover their hair. Christians eat pork. They don't strictly observe the Sabbath. They don't sacrifice animals. They don't follow what it says about slavery, war or marriage. Those are just a few things.

Not only was I raised as a hardcore fundamentalist, I have spent years studying religions. I can see you've given it all some thought, but your understanding of Christianity is very limited. If I had the choice, I'd prefer not to have the level of knowledge that comes from total immersion in fundamentalism.

-another atheist

I am not sure what you think we are disagreeing on. The narrative describing the life and death of Christ, and the reasons why all of that happened, is a fundamental aspect of Christianity. There are now moderate Christian denominations, or individual Christians who make the claim that the Christian system of belief is flexible, and that Bible is not meant to be taken literally - it's filled with some facts/truths, but also stories and parables. See the post I was replying to for an example of this mentality.

Now you can say that the rules about the Sabbath, eating pork, and even the instructions given about how to keep slaves and how much you can beat them, that these are all parables meant to illustrate some greater truth. We can go in circles arguing these things for days without a satisfactory answer because religion is man made and once you allow for flexible interpretation away from face value of the words written, well then it's like two guys standing in front of a painting arguing about the true artistic intent of the now deceased artist - the experiences are then almost purely subjective.

But the fact is that there is a line somewhere and a believer have to decide where it is. Was the story of Jesus all true? If you believe it is all true, how do you square the death and resurrection of Jesus with modern science. You have to choose whether you believe that Jesus died and was resurrected, or the science that indicates resurrection after death is not possible; these two claims are incompatible and you can't believe both at the same time. This goes to the heart of the argument. I don't really care how Christians square their lack of adherence to their faith in other comparatively minor aspects of their religious practice, but this fundamental core belief in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, is central and fundamental to their belief. You cannot be a Christian if you don't believe the bible's claims about Jesus.

Now bringing the argument back to the point about fundamentalism. I want to point out that "Christ is a fundamental aspect of Christianity" doesn't mean I think anyone who believes in this story as the truth is a fundamentalist, this is just an unfortunate coincidence in word usage. In drawing the aforementioned line separating facts/truth and stories/parables, the moderate Christians have made a squiggly one through the pages of the bible, picking and choosing as they go along with their study. The fundamentalists have drawn a straight line. What I am saying is that I have more respect for the mindset of the fundamentalists in this matter, rather than the fuzzy mindset of the moderates. If you claim you believe in something, you should actually study it and believe it, instead of choosing which part to believe in based on whether you feel it violates your worldly sensibilities.

McLeanAthiest

[Anonymous]

I'm telling you that no one follows the bible in its entirety, not even fundamentalists. I thought that was pretty clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why?

I'm 23 and supposedly most my age aren't religious, but I don't understand how you can just say you don't believe in God anymore? Do you think you're more intelligent because you're an Atheist? I'm pretty free thinking myself, so I obviously don't let religion influence my thinking. So what is it about Atheism that is appealing to you all?

As explained by Bertrand Russell, the Occam's razor principle means that "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."

That's why I tend to trust science and evidence-based knowledge more than gremlims, leprechauns, gods...or their prophets.

Ummmm.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, the fundamentalists have chosen their side, their religion over everything else. This is what religion teaches and they have followed it. They are honest about it with themselves and others. Now you say that much of the bible was not meant to be taken literally. But with that, you've revealed religion to be hollow and completely artificial, because now you have no foundation on which to base your practice. For example if the religion you believe in claims that Christ died and was resurrected, which conflicts with modern science in a very real sense, do you discount this as a "not meant to be taken literally?" If that's the case then what really happened? if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then what proof is there that he is the son of God? If he never died in the first place, then how are the sinners of this world redeemed? Was there even a person named Jesus? And if there wasn't....

Where do we draw the line between facts/reality, and teachings/parables?

If no one knows for sure, how can you practice that as a religion, which requires a specific system of belief at its very foundation.

So given the above, while I don't find any religion to be valid or convincing, at least I can appreciate the mindset of the fundamentalist believers.

McLeanAthiest

I think you're way off track here. The most common belief is that salvation through Christ is the solution to many of the rules of the Old Testament. Belief and salvation are the post-Christ replacement for the sacrifice and ceremony aspects. The fundamentalists still selectively follow parts of the Old Testament. There are very few denominations that encourage women to cover their hair. Christians eat pork. They don't strictly observe the Sabbath. They don't sacrifice animals. They don't follow what it says about slavery, war or marriage. Those are just a few things.

Not only was I raised as a hardcore fundamentalist, I have spent years studying religions. I can see you've given it all some thought, but your understanding of Christianity is very limited. If I had the choice, I'd prefer not to have the level of knowledge that comes from total immersion in fundamentalism.

-another atheist

I am not sure what you think we are disagreeing on. The narrative describing the life and death of Christ, and the reasons why all of that happened, is a fundamental aspect of Christianity. There are now moderate Christian denominations, or individual Christians who make the claim that the Christian system of belief is flexible, and that Bible is not meant to be taken literally - it's filled with some facts/truths, but also stories and parables. See the post I was replying to for an example of this mentality.

Now you can say that the rules about the Sabbath, eating pork, and even the instructions given about how to keep slaves and how much you can beat them, that these are all parables meant to illustrate some greater truth. We can go in circles arguing these things for days without a satisfactory answer because religion is man made and once you allow for flexible interpretation away from face value of the words written, well then it's like two guys standing in front of a painting arguing about the true artistic intent of the now deceased artist - the experiences are then almost purely subjective.

But the fact is that there is a line somewhere and a believer have to decide where it is. Was the story of Jesus all true? If you believe it is all true, how do you square the death and resurrection of Jesus with modern science. You have to choose whether you believe that Jesus died and was resurrected, or the science that indicates resurrection after death is not possible; these two claims are incompatible and you can't believe both at the same time. This goes to the heart of the argument. I don't really care how Christians square their lack of adherence to their faith in other comparatively minor aspects of their religious practice, but this fundamental core belief in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, is central and fundamental to their belief. You cannot be a Christian if you don't believe the bible's claims about Jesus.

Now bringing the argument back to the point about fundamentalism. I want to point out that "Christ is a fundamental aspect of Christianity" doesn't mean I think anyone who believes in this story as the truth is a fundamentalist, this is just an unfortunate coincidence in word usage. In drawing the aforementioned line separating facts/truth and stories/parables, the moderate Christians have made a squiggly one through the pages of the bible, picking and choosing as they go along with their study. The fundamentalists have drawn a straight line. What I am saying is that I have more respect for the mindset of the fundamentalists in this matter, rather than the fuzzy mindset of the moderates. If you claim you believe in something, you should actually study it and believe it, instead of choosing which part to believe in based on whether you feel it violates your worldly sensibilities.

McLeanAthiest

Meanwhile, you have decided what the right way to "study and believe" is. Many sincere Christians "have studied and believe" that the resurrection is a metaphor for rebirth. They believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in a different way than you and the fundamentalists think they should believe, but they still believe.

Some educated religious liberal Christians are aware of the numerous ancient resurrection myths and see them (and Jesus) as reflecting a basic human desire to remake themselves and get a fresh start. I respect the liberals more because they are more thoughtful and less dogmatic and more aware of and in sync with modern science and philosophy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I was with you until you said: "I have far more respect for fundamentalists - at least they are honest with themselves and others about what they truly believe, and have the conviction to see things through."

They may be firm in their beliefs, but many of their beliefs are in conflict with modern science - not good. And fundamentalists believe they should impose their beliefs on others.

Also, I'd say you are too hung up on the scriptures (much the way fundamentalists are). Liberal Christians may go overboard in interpreting the Bible to mean whatever they want it to mean, but truly, there is a lot of Biblical scholarship out there, written by seminary professors (not apologists) that indicates that much of the Bible was not meant to be taken literally.

Well, the fundamentalists have chosen their side, their religion over everything else. This is what religion teaches and they have followed it. They are honest about it with themselves and others. Now you say that much of the bible was not meant to be taken literally. But with that, you've revealed religion to be hollow and completely artificial, because now you have no foundation on which to base your practice. For example if the religion you believe in claims that Christ died and was resurrected, which conflicts with modern science in a very real sense, do you discount this as a "not meant to be taken literally?" If that's the case then what really happened? if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then what proof is there that he is the son of God? If he never died in the first place, then how are the sinners of this world redeemed? Was there even a person named Jesus? And if there wasn't....

Where do we draw the line between facts/reality, and teachings/parables?

If no one knows for sure, how can you practice that as a religion, which requires a specific system of belief at its very foundation.

So given the above, while I don't find any religion to be valid or convincing, at least I can appreciate the mindset of the fundamentalist believers.

McLeanAthiest

Please consider that you are making assumptions. Many Fundamentalists have not "chosen" their side -- they were indoctrinated into it as children and stay with it out of fear of eternal damnation. Others chose it as adults because they were effectively scared into thinking embracing such beliefs was their only hope for eternal life.

Also some religions don't require a specific "system" of belief. Instead they are very fuzzy. You can pretty much believe what you want. They totally accept science. The religion part doesn't interfere.

I find your reasoning ironic. What is the basis of religion if not fear and indoctrination? You think any of the moderate Christians woke up one day and said "oh, I think I'll choose Christianity" like making a choice of which brand of yogurt to buy at the store after reading the labels? Moderate Christians likely are Christians because of family or social context, not some personal innate sense of spirituality that drove them there.

Now the part about choice, even if one is indoctrinated while young, once you grow up and become educated, you absolutely have to make a choice between the facts of modern science and the claims of religion. There is no shortage of well educated, intelligent people who are also deeply religious and are fundamentalists - see how many people still believe in the young earth theory because that's the choice they've made even though science has taught them differently.

With regards to religion and its requirement for a system of belief, look up the definition of religion?

“A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe.”

You cannot have a religion without organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views. Now, no one says you can't go on having fuzzy feelings about beliefs, but that's not religion. Call it something else.

Religion is often used for fear and indoctrination, but its simple dictionary meaning is "binding together" and that is what it was used for by the first humans - building community, as well as an attempt to explain the world around them. Remember Jehovah and Jesus - and written language -- didn't come around until much later, along with dogma and indoctrination - the bad things associated with religion today.