Get to the Foundation

Sooner rather than later, shift the conversation from world-views to foundations of worldviews.
That is where I want the convo to go anyway!
Moreover unless we understand different foundations, we can't talk meaningfully about worldviews. 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 may only mean you are inconsistent with THEIR foundations.
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 observations, and consistent 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, only admitting self-supporting data, a closed loop for a closed mind. Also, 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.)

Note there is a crucial difference between observational science (which is based on the measured data), and historical ‘science’ (which depends more upon 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 consistent 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.

Interpretations rely on founding assumptions. Question them. Expose them. Until your naturalist protagonists can see that, & why, our foundations differ from theirs, they’ll not see why our world-views differ from theirs.

This is 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 real world observations. And the fact is, we’re none of those things. Rather, our world-views logically flow from a different foundation, (better, more consistent with all the observations, more solid/good/life-giving, but different), a foundation 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.