Hansel touched upon the problem with your approach, although I think it's more dodgy than you appear to realize, starting out with your initial decision sounding as if they are made through faulty reasoning based on a prejudice and simplistic pre-conclusions. The choice really is a guy who practices charity love hope and faith but has to bring his invisible friend along which instructs him about it all, or a guy who practices charity love hope and faith expressly for their own sakes with no such hang ups. If you know the christian practices what you personally expect his religion will tell him to, ie only nice parts not the nasty ones, then there is no reason why you should not know about what the atheist practices too. You are expecting a person who needs to put fanciful myth between you and goodness will look out for you better than one who you know makes no such condition. Well good luck with that . Send me a postcard if your christian doesn't over time lose the rest of his reasoning to Jebus and get all crucifixtion partay on you.
You are completely missing the point. Its not about the individual, its generalizations which inform the entire group and generalizations about how the group comports themselves. Christian's most impressive teachings come form Jesus in parable form. Atheists most impressive teaching comes from what... the theory we all got here by random chance out of goo and we therefore need not have thoughts of an after life or eternal reward? In terms of groups we can compare Crusades to Pograms so we need not go there. But the question comes down to this. In a potential duel to the death for limited resources would you rather take you chances with a guy who strongly believes there is no eternal reward or a guy who does strongly believe in eternal reward based on faith and charity?
Seeing you ask, I'd rather take my chance with a guy who based his actions on faith and charity irrespective of what he believed or did nor believe. When it comes down to generalizations that inform the entire group, I 'd rather trust people individually who instinctively know right from wrong, not someone who can only understand those two concepts when instructed where and what they are by fictional characters in a rather morally dubious story book.