We disagree on materialism, it appears! I define materialism as a socio-economic theory which says the the more material commodities people can own, the happier they are. I suspect that you associate it with empiricism, a philosophy based on the idea that only the observed fact is valid and real.
Neither of these is particularly valid. The possession of material things merely leads, as the Stoics point out, to fearing the loss of them, and the urge to 'keep up with theJoneses'. Neither are states conducive to happiness. Empiricism rests on a false assumption that our limited perception of events or objects is always complete and correct. An idea that decades of scientific and philosophical research and study constantly undermines.
Consciousness is an evolutionary trait shared by all animals, to a greater or lesser degree. Intentionality is part of a developed consciousess and is shared with most of the more evolved animals. Both are mutations which have proved successful in promoting individual and species survival.
Rationality seems to be a human construct. An acquired mental skill that allows us to view things in a manner detached from our emotions and instincts. All land animals instinctively fear fire. One of the greatest results of rationality, the ability to set instinct and emotion aside, was the moment(s) in which our forebears became able to make use of fire.
Morality is yet another human construct. A shared set of rules allowing a group to survive better by forbidding individuals to behave in counter-productive or divisive ways. By comparison, all other animals are largely amoral: rules may appear to exist, but ony insofar as the dominant animals in the pack or troop can enforce them - any individual of sufficient strength or cunning will ignore or evade them, and there is little or no community enforcement.
In the matter of significant, we are, of course, significant to ourselves and the immediate environment against which we set ourselves. But the plants and animals and biomes we affect are not, in themselves, aware of our significance. Nor is the Universe.
If Theists believe that God has consciousness, intentionality, morality and so forth, or is benevolent or malevolent, then this is still anthropomorphism. Those are uniquely human characteristics, after all! Deism still implies a personal, conscious God and is therefore the same.
Pantheism (God=the Universe or vice-versa) is less so, since it accepts the idea of a creative force which simply creates.
Atheism is fundamentally no different from Pantheism in that respect.
Insofar as I am concerned, there may or may not be entities out there who are advanced and powerful enough to be considered Gods, but who are just as much the results of evolution as we are. This places worship of any such in the category of 'Cargo Cults'.
It would be more helpful if we, as a species, stopped worrying about 'spiritual' whys and wherefores, and ocnetrated ourmetal energy on improving ourselves and the planet!
As to the rest, in the words of the late Dr Asimov: "I'm sure God is a lot smarter than I am, so I'll let Him try to find me!"
