I find the arguments of atheistic materialists, interesting. Many are one-sided, and appealed to arbitrarily. That is, those who use materialistic arguments often appeal to them only when it seems to help the point that they are currently trying to make. But, they don’t examine those same arguments, when they could lead to conclusions that the person doesn’t believe in.
“Survival of the fittest” is appealed to, whenever some individuals die that the user of the argument doesn’t care about. But it is ignored, when some species goes extinct that was beautiful, or obviously had a place in the natural environment. No one who is PC would apply survival of the fittest to say that dirt poor migrants from Central America should probably die on their journey, because they are not fitted to survive.
“Random variation” is appealed to, to counter all arguments about a designer of the natural world. But when someone like Ed Dembski or Michael Behe appeal to the actual (limited) power of mathematical randomness or chemical DNA randomness to show that the current complex information in nature cannot be explained by random dynamics, then they are mocked as idiots.
That human beings fall into (biologically) the animal kingdom, is used in very schizophrenic arguments. To argue that there should be “human rights” apart from just living as an animal, is to deny the argument that a human being is just an animal. When atheists don’t want to consider the more advanced contemplations of human beings about morality/ethics, they say that human beings are just animals, so morality/ethics is a useless subject. But then they appeal incoherently to concepts of genocide, and oppression, and a fair rule of law, and human rights, and property rights, and identity, and compassion, which are based on the idea that human beings are not just another animal.
There are real logical reasons why atheists should be concerned with the health of the natural environment. Christians have biblical texts that address the responsible treatment of the land, and animals, and other human beings. But the atheistic PC approach is to appeal to one-sided arguments, incoherently, whenever they please the user of the argument. And apart from all of God’s moral/ethical code.