I will start by saying that all belief systems are there because we do not know. When you know something, belief becomes unnecessary. You only believe something because you don't know.
I find a lot of fault with this philosophy. I also don't know what is the main point you are trying to make.
"Believing" doesn't always mean we don't know. In fact, it's just the opposite. People believe because they DO "know". Now, from there we can make arguments. Not all beliefs are correct. Not everyone who believes something (religious or otherwise) has all the facts or even correct information. That much is true, and there are plenty of examples every day in everyone's life.
So lets revisit my statement that people believe because they do "know". A better statement is that they think they know. Some things people believe or know are just false. Their belief is wrong because their evidence is wrong and/or incomplete.
But to say that people believe because they don't know is incorrect. No one believes anything without some evidence of some type. And in the year 2022 it's going to based on artifacts and written historical accounts (as it pertains to religion). Whether or not it's accurate is not the question. The fact is that whether you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim you are basing your religious beliefs on some evidence. As for Hinduism, Buddhism and others, I cannot comment. I have read Buddha and have a high school knowledge of these religions. I don't know much more about them. And by the way, I'm saying I don't know about the... but that doesn't mean I believe them. (Thus showing the error in your logic).
Eyewitness testimony is also open to scrutiny. The people back then had less technology and didn't have much science either-they believed all sorts of things that they simply couldn't explain
This is also faulty reasoning. We have eyewitness accounts from the American Civil War, WWI, and the Battle of Thermopylea. Are we to scrutinize them due to lack of technology?
Furthermore, I would argue that technology can lead to scrutiny. If you doubt me, I have one word for you: photoshop! Now do you really believe that technology reduces scrutiny?
Eyewitness accounts are not always accurate so they are to be scrutinized. But in history it's rarely due to a lack of technology, but rather personal bias.
Now because we are in a religious discussion, I would like to comment on why you made this statement. But I don't know why you made it, so I can't comment. And by they way, just because I don't know why you made it doesn't mean I believe it, as your philosophy suggests I would.
Based on evidence given by your writing, I "believe" you are questioning what we really know about Christ, about God and about Christianity. While I can point to various artifacts and nonbiblical historical accounts, my main source is the Bible. Unless you have never read it oreven heard of it, that should surprise. surprise.
So, I can theorize that you don't believe the Bible. While I believe this based on evidence (and all my evidence is true as it is freely displayed in this thread), if my belief is a false conclusion based on incomplete information or faulty logic, please let me know.