Get to the Foundation

Sooner rather than later, shift the conversation from world-views to foundation level.
That is where I want the convo to go anyway! But this is imperative, otherwise we can't talk meaningfully. See the video below at 45:54
(Note: Ken defines world-views as based on foundations, whereas I define worldviews as including foundations, but his distinction is helpful here.) If people are attacking you for your world-views (about say, abortion, gender, love), it means you are inconsistent with THEIR foundation.
So exposing the different foundations, allows you to have a deeper more useful conversation about that first. And it raises the question, WHOSE foundation is the true one - God’s Word or man’s word?

God's Word really shines as an objectively reliable foundation. We have objective evidences, and interpretations of those observations which have better global explanatory power. We have good and sufficient reasons to accept the Bible's historical reliability, and its divine revelation. (See apologetics for how we know the Bible is reliable - Core Stuff).
Compare this Biblical foundation with naturalism's…
.Naturalism simplistically excludes any supernatural phenomena, a only admitting self-supporting data, a closed loop for a closed mind.
.Naturalistic science is often biased by peer pressure and financial pressure to conform or be cancelled, especially wherever scientists are unquestioningly wedded to their own interpretation (eg. evolution.)

There is a crucial difference between observational science (which is the measured data), and historical ‘science’ (which depends on interpretations of the data.) All interpretations must work with the same observations (not simply exclude observations that don't fit.) And Biblical interpretations work just as well with all the observations as any other interpretation, in fact better - eg They offer more cohesive interpretations across all disciplines such as design, genetic entropy, biology, geology, anthropology, cosmology, historical archaeology & manuscript evidence... Search creation.com for your subject of interest.

Anyway, until your naturalist protagonists can see that & why our foundations differ from theirs, they’ll not see why our world-views differ from theirs. But it's such an obvious point. Maybe some refuse to look foundationally because it's easier to simplistically label us illogical / primitive / hateful / conspiracy theorists. That would be divisive avoidance of the reality we represent.

In fact we’re none of those things. Rather, our world-views logically flow from a different (better, more solid/good/life-giving, but different) foundation, and one worthy of their consideration... if they only would.
If they DON'T see that much, well that would be illogical, wouldn't it.
If they DO see that much, they should give us a little credit. And consider our foundations.