Here is a quick, interesting but still undeveloped reductio ad absurdum argument against atheistic-naturalism that I have rolled around in my head.
Premise 1: If atheistic-naturalism is true, then, objectively-speaking, all purposes and goals are equal; essentially, all purposes and goals are as equally good and as equally valid as any others, for, on atheistic-naturalism, human beings have no objective purposes or goals, and thus no subjectively-chosen purpose or goal can be objectively better than any other.
Premise 2: But it is obviously absurd to claim that the purpose and goal of ‘playing video games until my fingers fall off’ or ‘eating until I am obese’ is equal to the purpose and goal of ‘curing cancer’ or ‘writing a timeless novel’. Indeed, it is obvious that ‘curing cancer’ or ‘writing a timeless novel’ is an objectively better purpose and goal than ‘endlessly playing video games’ or ‘eating until I am obese’ is.
Conclusion: Therefore, a key and unavoidable component of atheistic-naturalism—namely, the subjectivity and thus the equality of all human purposes and goals—is absurd, and so atheistic-naturalism is absurd. Ergo, atheistic-naturalism is false.
Anyway, something to think about.