When skeptics say they couldn't adhere to a religion because they can't be sure it's 100% bulletproof they're committing a double standard.

•  Why commit yourself to a person, whether within marriage or as just significant others, when there's always a possibly that one party could commit infidelity, either emotionally and/or physically?
• Further more why dedicate yourself to a romantic relationship when that person isn't perfect? After all, if you can't commit to a non-bulletproof religion why commit to an imperfect person?
• For actors, why take on a role that doesn't necessarily promise more roles - and better roles  - with prestige directors? Why even take on a project where as an actor you don't know how the final theatrical will be received? Faith, possibly? Trust?
• Why settle for a certain citizenship when the government of your country will commit crimes against humanity, no matter how small?

The hesitancy to not commit yourself to a religion because, in your view, it's not bulletproof is just pedestrian thinking. As humans we commit ourselves to imperfect systems and to imperfect people, so when some non-religious person says they can't become a Catholic because it has "holes" they're talking rubbish. If they're dating someone ask them if they're dating them because that person is perfect and has no "holes." Hold them up to the "not perfect" standard they hold Catholicism to or for their lack of belief. By their logic they should never be in a longterm relationship let alone a serious relationship - and that anyone who wants to be in a relationship with them, well, they shouldn't because they themselves are not perfect. Why commit yourself to an imperfect god?