I have thought of a fundamental fallacy in my argument.
If the Universe is a computer, then it should be able to be entirely simulated within a program. Ergo, this simulation must be able to reach a point in time in which the human inside the simulation will be able to code a simulation. So the second simulation must be able to reach a point in time in which the human inside the second simulation will be able to code a third simulation....
This directly conflicts with the heat death of the Universe.
However, you can formulate a new belief. You can say that the probability of life spawning during the heat death is not 0; but rather, it approaches 0. As in, it is 1 - .9 repeating. If you can imagine, it is the largest irrational number greater than 0. So there is an infinitely small but still non-zero chance that life will occur at the heat death of the Universe. Eventually, Bayesian probability will ensure that this life will occur. The Big Bang will repeat. This is a cyclical view of the Universe : Big Bang -> Heat Death -> Big Bang. Again, I do not have any evidence for this point. It is a purely irrational view.
Atomism is a religion, not a philosophy. In terms of religions, it only really fundamentally breaks the second law of thermodynamics. That isn't that bad.
I think all atheists are atomists. If you do not believe in the afterlife, then you do not believe that your life has any meaning. Ergo, kill yourself/live as hedonistically as humanly possible. The very fact that you do not kill yourself/just fuck and drink all day signals that you think your impact on the planet is not finite. But this conflicts with the second law of thermodynamics, which insures all thought, life, and computation are finite. Ergo, your belief system breaks the second law of thermodynamics, so you must be an atomist.