Therefore, by definition, where the philosophy prevails, science itself is small minded, tunnel visioned, incomplete.
Well, it is worth bearing in mind that I also reject the type of frequent assertions one sees that science cannot examine and discover the supernatural (if there's anything there to discover) or whatever else may be external to this universe's space-time for that matter. I am my own little personal Tower of Babylon! =)
For any atheist, the quality of life after physical death is zero. No wonder they are so interested in avoiding it.
I am neutral with regard to what may come after life; our minds are energy fields and it's not entirely clear what happens to them once we die. My suspicion is that they just dissipate, but we don't know for certain. However, bear in mind that whatever, if anything, may come after life is something other than life, or else it would not be after life, now would it?
Indeed, this is the only path to immortality for an atheist who is not a metaphysical naturalist.
Well, my suspicion is that if we were to achieve perpetual youth, then most people would choose to die sooner or later, but that's just my guess. However, if one wanted immortality, then that's the only path we can have any confidence about.
Moreover, I am not properly described as an atheist, but rather as an agnostic. Since I believe that the universe is not self-contained - that it was originated of, from, or by something outside of itself - and moreover that this something may have been something that we could classify as a deity, I am not properly speaking an atheist.
Finally, as I have said before, it is not that I'm convinced gods don't exist, but rather that I am convinced no gods exist that one need concern oneself with from a practical standpoint.
If I were to bet my life on it, however, I would certainly bet that there are no gods as the term is commonly understood.
To the contrary, abiogenesis (life from non-life) requires a definition of non-life v life. Likewise, how could one assert they have overcome death without a definition of life v death.
Nonetheless, the question of abiogenesis also has no great practical bearing. We are here, however we came to be here. That's the only practical definition we require in that regard.
PS. I am not ignoring your comments on defining life v non-life; I'm just not prepared/inclined to discuss them at the moment.
Whew! I’m glad you clarified that you are agnostic – I was fixing to have to abandon my habit of referring to metaphysical naturalists with a parenthetical “atheists” following. It is always true that metaphysical naturalists are atheists but not necessarily true that all atheists are metaphysical naturalists though I had never met one until you.
On the other point, when you actually meet the One resurrected from the dead, Jesus Christ, then I’m confident you will understand what comes next.
One final point before we leave this sidebar discussion – it is very curious to me that you have formulated an opinion about the beginning with regard to cosmology but not with regard to life.