That atheism is not rationally justified

[Esquilax]

Those are not credible options so the dichotomy remains true.

Except that the premise the dichotomy is based on is itself untrue: there is no fine tuning. For something to have been fine tuned for life, you would need to establish that this set of conditions was, you know, fine tuned, instead of just being the way those conditions shook out. In essence, without establishing first that life in the universe was a pre-determined success state, in which other universes sans life are failure states, you can't establish fine tuning at all. If this universe was just one potential outcome, with no specific significance to it, then our particular universe is no more or less remarkable than any other.

That's the problem with the fine tuning argument: not only is it unforgivably anthropocentric for no reason at all, it includes a hidden premise that it just assumes to be true without ever demonstrating.

As for the OP's question, I don't find "it makes you happier!" to be a good reason to accept an untrue belief. And I don't see why anyone else would want to be condescended to like that either.