The fact that there are many options in no way logically implies that none of them are correct.
No, but when each of the options claims that the others are false, and all use the same unfalsifiable premise (god) to justify it, there is no way to deduce that one is any truer than the other. Their arguments are the same, and their evidence is not only the same, but also inaccessible. It's literally impossible to choose one over the other for any good reason. This wouldn't be a problem however, if it wasn't written in the scriptures that you would burn in hell for not believing in that specific religion's god, but it is.
Your notion of fairness is problematic, for there is no particular reason to assume that a deity owes us anything.
My definition of fairness is at the very least, in order for you to be criticized for not doing something, you must first be capable of doing it. For instance, it would be unfair to criticize me for not preventing 9/11, as I had no way of knowing that it would happen in the first place. Most gods punish people for not choosing their religion. As you can see from my above argument, it is simply not possible to choose the correct religion based on any information accessible to me. That makes the punishment unfair.
Scriptural inconsistencies are unique to the scriptures they are a part of, and in most cases can easily be explained as human error.
This is true, they can be, but how do we decide what is human error and what isn't? If this we applied logic to this, we could add up every point in each scripture to see how many times it's made, and say that the more times it's made then the more likely it is to be true. If we did this, however, I think we still would find major inconsistencies on key points, and have no way of telling what is the word of god, and what is the error of humankind.
It is not a real problem, as a being that transcends this universe is fully capable of defining morality. Religious thought often assumes that morality exists as an artifact of Gods existence, not prior to it.
In theory then, god could define good as torturing babies to death, and that would become good. Without changing any laws of the universe or of logic. Never mind that that doesn't seem possible, but it's also an abhorrent thought. And if morality is defined by God as arbitrarily as he chooses, then I wonder what worth it actually has. On top of that, it would be a lot easier if God had simply written in why he decided to make moral the things that he did. Then I would be much more convinced to take up his religion. But he didn't, so once again I'm left with a dilemma of the impossibility of choice between religions.
And the track record you mention is not a real thing. In the case of the bible you are dealing with a book that has no pretensions to being scientific, and is instead a moral record. Creationism as a (edit: movement) is pretty new,having only gained a lot of serious traction in the last 60 years.
I guess I'll concede that this was more a problem with religious people than with the religious texts themselves.