Truth seeking teenagers, if rational, and unencumbered by parental indoctrination, usually reason their way to nihilism (lack of an objective referent for knowledge or morality). Those who dislike nihilism look around for alternatives, and find an endless labyrinth of possibilities, including a glut of religions competing for attention.
Religions offer an alternative to both nihilism and the labyrinth (i.e. philosophy). They say, "This is truth. Stop here." More specifically, "X is truth. Believe it, do what you're told, and you'll be okay. Now go think about practical things, and enjoy what you can of life." This is where X = an allegedly undeniable authority behind a convoluted narrative that promises a happy afterlife. Most truth seekers fall into the predominant religion of their culture - at least for a while.
But they are not so easily placated, especially after they discover logic as a reliable counter-authority. Though religion's convoluted narrative contains enough ambiguities and interpretive options to avoid logical refutation, it can't withstand logic plus common sense combined. Religion, undaunted, either asserts that logic is untrustworthy because it cannot verify itself (pantheism), or claim that logic is based on religion's undeniable authority (monotheism).
The price of religion (besides money and social restriction) is dogmatism. You have to pretend to know what you don't know - anathema to a truth seeker, who must then either go back to the old labyrinth, settle uncomfortably in agnosticism, or (usually) flounder in the middle.
The middle is the abode of the modern atheist - not a complete anti-theist with an actual philosophical position, but an agnostic who acts like an anti-theist. Minds in this unstable position usually drift right back into dogmatism, claiming to know the reverse of what the religionists claim. i.e. No God; no afterlife; no soul; no free will - and no burden of proof.
We now live in an angry world of dogma vs. dogma, with religionists killing each other, and anti-religionists offering only counter-dogma and nihilism (disguised of course) as an alternative. This world is long overdue for a dialectic synthesis of opposing dogmas, and an upgrade to theology - and here it is: NON-DOGMATIC THEISM.
If an atheist can be an agnostic who bets against all gods, then a theist can be an agnostic who bets on a God - specifically a Supreme Being, and/or a God to whom humans are accountable. Neither scripture, nor the dogmas in it, are necessary. Critical thinking is all you need to figure this out: It is in your best interest to bet your life on what appears to be in your best interest. Not like Pascal, betting on the religion of his culture, but sensibly betting on the necessary preconditions of worthwhile life, and acknowledging logical possibilities.
There MAY BE an afterlife; it may be just. Therefore act accordingly. There may be a God in charge of humans; it may be interactive. Therefore act accordingly. Don't like the results? Change a premise and try again. You can take it further if you like. e.g. Jesus may be necessary. You can be a non-dogmatic Christian ... or Muslim, etc. Figure the odds, and place your bet. There's no book (or any authority) telling you to pretend to know (or believe, or feel) what you don't. If there's a God worth relating to, you will find each other; and it won't tell you to fake anything.