Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[robvalue]

The only question that matters is: are people prepared to put their usual conclusions and beliefs aside and to work upwards from what we can observe and test? If those beliefs and conclusions are true, they can be reached without pre-supposing them, since they apparently already did this. If they can't then it is indicative of a problem, that holding onto these beliefs is more important than finding out what is actually true.

So it comes down to this: do you care about what is true?

You can never be objective or sceptical about anything while you hold pre-drawn conclusions that you will force the data to meet.

Am I perfect at doing this myself? Of course not, I'm a fucking shambles. But I try my best to make that my goal.

For those interested in truth, it is also important not to respond to questions about your beliefs with the tu quoque fallacy. This is a deflection, and an implicit admission that there are problems with your belief that you'd rather point out in others than address yourself. Of course we're told as atheists we have decided already God does not exist. For most of us, that is not the case, hence agnosticism so the tu quoque falls very flat. For Gnostics, they will generally have a pretty good case lined up which they will be happy to defend. But them defending it is still a deflection from the questions at hand.

For those not familiar, please read more about what tu quoque is here. It's a tactic that I sadly see an awful, awful lot. Probably second to the argument from ignorance. But both these tactics seem in some way to "come naturally" so I don't look down on people who fall foul of them because they are something I have to police in my own thinking. When it becomes dishonesty is when people continue to use the same tactics repeatedly after it has been explained why they are invalid.