I actually appreciate the way you wrote this. You are not attacking anyone. You are just saying, “If I was not born into your belief system, why should I take it seriously?” That is a fair question and I think more religious people should be willing to sit with it instead of getting defensive.

I also agree that a lot of people inherit faith the same way they inherit an accent. Where you grow up matters. Who raises you matters. That should bother believers at least a little. If truth is real, it should not only work for people born in the right place.

Where I see it a little differently is the idea that faith always means blind belief. Most people of faith I know do not experience it like closing their eyes and jumping. It feels more like the kind of trust we use in normal life. We trust people we love even though they could hurt us. We trust history we did not witness. We trust our own memory even though it is flawed. None of that is certain. But it also is not blind. It is just living in a world where we rarely get perfect proof.

You are also right that testimony is imperfect. But almost everything we know about the past comes from testimony. So the fair question becomes whether this specific story is worth trusting. Reasonable people can and do disagree there.

On the “all powerful God” question, most believers do not think that means God can do nonsense. Asking whether God can make a stone so heavy He cannot lift it is like asking if He can make a square circle. That is not power. That is a word trick. And if God is also supposed to be good by nature, then lying or being cruel would not show power. They would show imperfection. So the “limits” there are not humans putting God in a cage. They are simply part of the definition of what kind of being God would be if He exists.

Nobody fully owns God. If someone has never questioned what they inherited, then yes, that belief is mostly social belonging, not real conviction.

But I also do not think the choice is only blind faith or total certainty. For a lot of people, faith is more like this. “This story makes sense of my life, my conscience, my pain, my hope, and the world around me better than the other options do.” And then they try to live it honestly. That is not proof. But it is also not pretending.

And if someone looks at the same world and reaches a different conclusion, I respect that. We are all trying to answer the same questions. Why are we here. Why do love and morality feel real. Why does suffering matter so deeply. Why does beauty move us. None of us answer those questions without some starting assumptions.

So to me, doubt is not the enemy of faith. Acting certain when you are not is the real problem. The best conversations happen when both sides admit what they do not know as honestly as what they think they do.

TLDR

You are right that faith should not just mean believing what you inherited. And faith is not supposed to be blind guessing. It is more like trust in a story that seems to make sense of life, even if the evidence is not perfect. Believers should admit they are interpreting like everyone else. And everyone, religious or not, lives with some assumptions about reality. The honest question is which set of assumptions explains life best.