The difference between ethical atheism and nihlism is that ethical atheists have more faith

[Esquilax]

What do you call this process of ascribing rights? You havn't answered the question of why it is wrong to believe certain things upon insufficient evidence as it relates to theology but not according to something like ascribing rights.

You have not said where any of the rights come from. It is true that peoples rights leave them when they die, if atheism is true and they have rights, but you have not demonstrated that people have rights at all.

It's called social agreement. This whole argument you're making skips over something important: empathy. We as people as capable of imagining the experiences of other people, and in doing so develop a sense of what is and isn't okay. We're social animals; our rights are based upon mutual agreement over the things we would or would not like to happen to us. What's so bad about that?

I believe that you have insufficient evidence to believe that people ever have rights that they can lose. You have not demonstrated that people are more important than rocks.

Well, intellect is a good start. We're the smartest creatures on the planet, or at least that's the way we interpret it from our own perspective, that's gotta count for something. But even if I were to say that we aren't inherently better than rocks... so what? Or rather, as opposed to what? I mean, you believe humanity is somehow more important that animals: are you advocating that we slaughter all the lesser species indiscriminately? If not, why does it matter? What difference does humanity's lack or otherwise of cosmological importance actually change?

If you were consistent with your extremely important ethical views, you would consider if the probability of deism or Christianity was greater than the probability of total nihilism.

We have. We've all probably spent more time considering our worldviews as atheists than you have. This is why we can all see through your false dichotomy.