What do you think of this passage?

[KevinM1]

What you're not getting is that the risk you mentioned is part of the claim itself. Moreover, there aren't scores of corroborated claims, just one claim - what's laid out in that particular book - repeated. Again, repetition doesn't add weight to the claim. That's the classic appeal to popularity fallacy, one that theists like to rely on ("Oh yeah? If we're wrong, then why are there so many people who believe in god?")

You keep talking about the percentage of risk based on the severity of it should it happen, which is also ridiculous. Probability isn't tied to severity. Probability is tied to observational evidence, of which you have none.

So, instead of trying to force emotional pleas and superstition-driven fear into contortions in order to seem rational, really step back and think about it. You're falling into the utter illogic of Pascal's Wager.