Only, most of the atheists you encounter these days are so abysmally ignorant of everything that they don't even realize that what they push has a name other than "atheism". And I'm including a lot of people with PhDs in science, some of them quite famous. I'll even include a few philosophers such as Daniel Dennett who gets tangled up in the most obvious of ways.
The most basic problem is that they pretend that every single thing about their materialist model of realty doesn't rely, entirely, on the thing they have to impeach or ignore because it can't be made to conform to their model, our minds and our minds experiencing reality as we live in it. They want to claim an unlimited number of exemptions for their preferred model of reality, as many of those as needed to maintain their belief in their model, exactly the same thing religious and political fundamentalists insist on. So, I present them with problems for their model that are quite obvious and in the daily experience of all of us.
The fact is that any, even the most minutely detailed and complex problem of our perception or thought, would have to have, not merely its image or representation BUT ITS ORIGIN in a physical structure in our brains, constructed through biochemical action by our brains, exactly the right structure to account for the exactingly detailed millions of ideas we have in the course of a week, each tiny nuance, each shading of meaning, some of them entirely unique in our experience -to our brains - or in the experience of our species and to get it right and for it to be appropriately linked with other structures so as to fit into a larger range of experience and coherence. And our brains have to do all of that in real time, in the fractions of seconds in which those ideas would have to form to account for us remembering things in as tiny a detail as one of the 32nd notes in a long run of them in each individual performance of a piece of music such as J.S. Bach's Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue. If the mechanism for the brain making those proposed idea-structures can't be explained or found, the "brain-only" materialist brain falls. If it doesn't seem plausible, as I think the anger at my post indicates it is not plausible, there is every reason to reject that materialist model and, without an ability to turn our experience into the result of physical causation, materialism as an ideology fails. If they think their anger doesn't lead me to conclude they can't respond to my points, let me take this occasion to tell them that is exactly what I conclude from their reaction.