There is nothing religious with thinking about whether failure modes of advanced artificial intelligence can permanently destroy large parts of the reality that humans care about. Just like there was nothing religious in thinking about whether the first atomic bombs could start a chain reaction that would destroy all life on Earth.

Part of such precautionary planning involves asking whether such an accident could happen easily or not. There certainly isn't consensus at the moment, but the philosophy very clearly favors a cautious approach.

Most people are used to thinking about established science that follows expected rules, or incremental advances that have no serious practical consequences. But this isn't that. There is good reason to think that we're approaching a step-change in capabilities to shape the world, and even a strong suspicion of this warrants taking serious defensive measures. Crucially for this particular instance of the discussion, OP is favoring that.

There will necessarily be a broad spectrum of opinions regarding how to handle this, both in the central judgement and how palatably the opinion itself is presented. Using a dismissive moniker like 'religious' for a whole segment of it doesn't give justice to the arguments.

Present a counterargument if you feel strongly about it, and see whether that will stand on its own merit.