I agree they're not "equal" choices, but the point of the existential challenge to atheism and to all worldviews is that our beliefs rest ultimately on leaps of faith in the existential sense and are therefore subject not just to logical or scientific criteria, but to pragmatic, aesthetic, or moral ones.

It's not atheism vs Christianity, for example, but neoliberal consumerism vs that religion. Which is better for the planet? Which is nobler and more honourable, given the existential predicament of all people for all time? That's the deeper conflict that Dillahunty's conventional new atheistic epistemology ignores.