I think that for the argument to have traction, we need to be very careful about how we understand "believing something based on reasons" or "reason responsiveness."  The Determinist does not deny that we have thoughts and that we make choices.  He also believes that there are mechanisms in us that may systematically link these thoughts to the outcome of these choices in such a way that—under the right conditions at least—if the starting beliefs are true, then it will be guaranteed that we will choose to believe something true as a conclusion.  A determinist may argue that this is all one needs for an inference to be valid.  And in some sense he would be right to say that we choose to believe in the conclusion because the premises are true.

What I think we need is a thoroughgoing distinction between mechanical causation of any kind and rational inference.  The choice to believe the conclusion of a rational inference must be grounded in the validity of the argument and not in any mechanistic sequence of causes.  Kant makes this point.

nojoum wrote:

I simply have no evidence to believe in miracles, rituals or things of the sort. The heart of man is not going to be changed with such things (for it were so simple, the world would not have been like this). My only hope is that maybe through sound arguments and gaining knowledge of God and myself, I can improve my relationship with God.
 

While I do believe in miracles and the power of ritual, my point was simply that building a relationship with God is best done in community along with others who are attempting the journey with you.  I only hope to encourage you not to give up the quest before giving it a try with the best community you can find (there are after all many bad ones).

Also, this brings up an important point relevant to your original question:  Why am I at all keen to press this point and encourage you not to give up?  Out of love for you.  Why?  Because I am convinced that the very best thing that could happen to you is to encounter God in a personal way.  If this is true, there is simply no loving someone without this dimension.  Everything else pales in comparison, so there is no way to understand how to love other people disconnected from the truth or falsehood of the claim that incredible blessedness or misery depends on one's relationship with God.

But to say that the metal does in fact go from being potentially in the shape of the Statue of Liberty to actually being in that shape does require man.  To say, then, that there is a potential that does not have anything to actualize it (and never will) is to say that it is a potential that cannot be realized, which, as Daniel pointed out is just to say that it is not a potential.

If those stats are from the philpaper survey, I think it is worth considering that the sample heavily leans toward anglophone contemporary analytic philosophers.  (Which is a little bit like polling a bunch of particle physicists about what they believe about heart disease: probably more rational than the population at large, but not that great either.)

Edit: On second thought, I really shouldn't give any ground in the first place to the idea that truth is a popularity contest.  My only point earlier was that many students of philosophy, especially at first have a false impression of how much philosophers disagree simply because highlighting disagreements is part of the philosophical method.

Oh and while Craig and Feser may disagree on details they agree on way more and what most of their arguments overwhelmingly prove is the way more part rather than the details.