Most debate seems to centre on his account of how 'something' appeared out of 'nothing', which essentially means understanding nothing, 0, as the result of 1 + -1. Such an understanding is compatible with the traditional explanation of a creation from the void by a creator God.
Atkins' weaknesses are curious ones, coming from a combination of scientism, nihilism and arrogance. One gets the feeling that a whole chunk of his brain is missing. He gives the impression, indeed he seems at pains to impress upon us, that he doesn't think truth can be conveyed by anything other than scientific discourse, that understanding not based on scientific methodology is of no value, and that human concerns not related to the acquisition of knowledge of scientific 'facts' are unworthy of consideration.