This also feels like terminology nitpicking. Plenty of scientists are agnostic instead of explicitly atheists, but they tend to be just as unreligious.
I don't see why "life exists and no god exists" should be a contradiction for formal or other reasons.
Furthermore: the existence of which god? As you know there and have been many religions with different gods.
And lastly: if it was straightforward, how come so many people fail to see it?
We can determine the truth of this statement empirically due to our understanding of information science, entropy, chemistry, and physics.
This is almost too dumb to respond to, but here goes.
Atheism isn't a hypothesis and never has been. I half-suspect you mean abiogenesis, but even there you'd be dead wrong. Recent research in abiogenesis has continued to make progress and I'd be happy to provide you with some recent citations. As for atheism being "a scientifically viable stance" you sound like you're way overstating the case in the hope that people won't know the difference and will give you really unearned credence. Per Wordnik, in their third definition atheism is "the denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person."
Put in layman's terms, that definition of atheism boils down to disbelief in stories that someone tells you about a supreme creator. Nobody is obligated to listen to or accept somebody else's words, even if they're said at high volume in over a microphone in front of a bunch of people willing to put money in a basket.
Science, on the other hand, is (basically) the "Money talks, bullshit walks" way of trying to filter out the whole host of lies, special pleading, misinformation and plain nonsense that gets bandied about under the "religion" banner.
I suggest you read the book "The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check" by Tan and Stadler. I'm well aware that you'll be able to try and snow the discussion with two dozen "citations" that will all be dead-end rabbit holes, but you can go ahead and provide them if you'd like.
If you want to do yourself a favor, try your skills on "there is no reasonable explanation of life, hence Zeus exists". Or Allah, if it helps.
Worse yet, you are peddling the god of the gaps: the god that is supposed to explain things where science cannot. This is exactly the god that is fleeing from science ever since science reared its head. And it is the view of god which the original article tries to refute. As your existence shows, it cannot be entirely right.
Of course I'm biting the bullet on God of the Gaps -- the question of the origin of life is the only interesting question in the universe, since without life no other question arises. When I write my book on this subject I will title it "The God of the Gap".
Now explain why you constantly appeal to a materialism of the gaps.