Lets just be straightforward with each other. I'm pretty sure you're going to fallaciously say something like if the probability is less then or if it's equal to x then you're an atheist otherwise you're a theist. I don't think any of that is relevant because I don't agree that a one dimensional characterization can accurately capture a religious position, or beliefs of other varieties.

Now I do believe all empirical beliefs can be modeled as probability assessments but it is a fallacy to identify a particular real value for any belief if the bayesian update step cannot be carried out since the data is not directly being measurable. So while our inclinations can be encoded as probability assessments they are not truly probabilistic since a probabilities are abstract models. It's a map vs territory issue. So while we can feel a qualitative sense for what a probabilistic model would assign to a belief, we cannot write down numerical probabilities unless there are statistical controls in place.

So just get to your argument and we can deal with it directly.