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

[SteveII]

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?

If I could give my two cents, I wrote this in response to a post some time ago (so forgive the references to a conversation you don't see): 

When discussing Jesus' miracles, the context, that strengthen the claim, might include:

1. Timing (cueing as you put it)
2. Illustrating a particular point. Example Mat 9 Jesus told a man his sins were forgiven. When the religious leaders grumbled that this was blasphemy, he asked what was easier to say that your sins are forgiven or to tell him to get up an walk.
3. Reinforce teachings with some authority. Example feeding 5000, Matt 9:35
4. So that people might believe (specifically stated). Example Lazarus (John 11)
5. Reward for faith.
6. Theologically significant. example virgin birth, baptism, tearing of the veil in the temple, resurrection.

Now, you ask about non-Jesus miracles. I don't think the above list applies to miracle today so we need to switch to why God might intervene with a miracle. I think that God, with his foreknowledge of what we will freely do, has already factored in our prayers in deciding what the best intervention (if any) is for us and the terribly complex "butterfly effect" any intervention might bring to the rest of the future and will do what is best in the long run. In this perspective, timing or "cueing" is meaningless because the goal has nothing to do with the goal. In fact, invoking it should be a red flag.

To further explain that thought, I think the Bible teaches us to ask in faith that God can grant our petition but always with the attitude of "not my will, but your will be done" (Lord's Prayer). Even with the right attitude, God does not promise to answer our every request. The only promise given is illustrated in Romans 8:28 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God..."

You are entirely correct that these factors reduce my assessment of the prospect of it being a miracle. That is why I said that today, miracle claims are overstated and I don't use them to argue the existance of miracles specifically or God in general. But in general, I have reason to believe they happen and should be asked for with the right attitude understanding that the answer could very well be "no".

---

I don't think is a matter of lowering the bar. I think if most people are pre-disposed to think that the supernatural exists, then the Christian version is the best evidenced religion by far. This assessment is supported by the fact that Christianity grows by many millions of adult conversions across the world each year whereas other religions do not.

Predisposal to think something isn't evidence of that something, but it's a pretty good reason to be suspicious of any claim that people are pre-disposed to accept on insufficient evidence.

So, if Islam had more adult conversions, you would switch, because that's such a good reason to think a religion is correct? If not, what does the rate of adult conversion have to do with the price of tea in China?

"Insufficient evidence" is a subjective assessment. My point was that millions of people per year do not make the same assessment.
Adult conversions is a good measure of how the population overall subjectively assesses the evidence for Christianity. If you have a different theory that would explain the effect, please provide.