People are very unsure on whether they should believe in "God" or not but that is an act of faith.
I'm certain that I have no blind faith in some deital superstition, sans evidence. "An act of faith" is precisely equivalent to blind 'trust' or, belief i something which expressly lacks supporting evidence. This is an irrational basis upon which to rest an equally irrational conclusion.
We inhale trusting that their is air for us to breathe. That is something that we just "do". We can not "see" the air but we inhale anyway. So I'm comparing that to believing in God, although we can not see Him we can trust that He is there and that He is real just like the air we breathe.
That's a false parallel since there is extant evidence that the "unseen air" is detectable in alternate and verifiable ways than sight. Such faux 'reasoning' does not extrapolate to equating detectable air with an undetectable 'g-d', (and falsely attributing anything or everything to such an undectable 'g-d' without evidence supporting such attributions other than blind faith is circular non-reasoning which does not hold water). In short, your reasoning is shown to be illogical and thus, faulty and that invalidates both your premise and the false conclusion drawn from it.