Theists: What is the most compelling argument you have heard for Atheism?

[Mister Agenda]

I'm indifferent to the historicity of a non-miracle-working Jesus, I don't have a bet placed.

But what's called 'evidence' for the miracle-working man seems to not add up to more than 'lots of people believed he was real and really worked miracles, so he was real and really worked miracles'.

Sounds like you've already decided that miracles cannot happen so you edit out those parts. Isn't that kind of like the file-drawer effect?

I've concluded that you can't take miracle claims at face value because no miracle that reasonably could have been confirmed if it actually was real has been confirmed. What's your rational, logical reason for thinking that the proper epistemological stance is to accept such claims, especially when too ancient to even be within the realm of possible confirmation, as real?