Looking for God: Sartre's avoidance?

I first read Sartre in my late teens.Because I HAD to read him to impress the girls etc etc.We all had to do that. I have been reading him again at the age of 48 as I wanted to explore what he really thought about God.
He mostly stayed away from the notion of a God even if he expressed no basis on which to plant his philosophical feet. To hell with that, he didn't need it. He was ready to survive in mid-air. We are French,( trust me, I know THAT one, I married a Frenchwoman) he was ready to say. We have minds, we can live with the absurd and ask for no reward. That is because we are noble enough to live with emptiness, and strong enough to choose a course which we are even ready to die for. And we will do this in whole defiance of the fact that, indeed, we have no footing. We do not look to a Hereafter.
It was an attitude; it was a proud stance; it was equal to living with one's mind in formless space, but it deprived existentialism of more interesting explorations. For atheism ( in his case I prefer more to call it non- theism)is a somewhat meaningless undertaking when it comes to philosophy. Atheism can contend with ethics (as Sartre did most brilliantly, that was his familiar ground), but when it comes to metaphysics, atheism dies a sad death. It is, after all, near to impossible for a philosopher to explore how we are here without entertaining some notion of what the prior force might have been.
All the same, Sartre's philosophical talents were unquestionable. He was able to function with precision in the upper echelons of every logical structure he set up. If only he had not been an existentialist! For an existentialist who does not believe in some kind of Other is equal to a chemist who designs a terrific drug that he offers it to no one. If existentialism is to flourish (that is, develop through a series of new philosophers building on earlier premises), it needs a God who is no more confident of the end than we are; a God who is an artist, not a law-giver; a God who suffers the uncertainties of existence; a God who lives without any of the pre-arranged guarantees that sit upon formal theology with its flatulent, self-serving assumption of a Being who is All-Good and All-Powerful. What an oxymoron--All-Good and All-Powerful. It is certain to maroon any and all formal theologians who would like to explain an earthquake. Before the wrath of a tsunami, they can only break wind. The notion of an existential God, a Creator who may have been doing His or Her artistic best, but could still have been remiss in designing the tectonic plates, is not within their scope.
My curiosity through all these is Sartre, at no point asserted his non-theism. Why?
I intended to finish this blog by quoting him which, to me,transmits almost what borders on a childlike seeking of God. The last sentence is almost heartbreakingly poignant.


“The existentialist . . . finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that “the good” exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky once wrote: ‘If God did not exist, everything would be permitted’; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself. . . . Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimise our behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. – We are left alone, without excuse. That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free.”