Very long thread with a lot to respond to, so I'll just focus on the crucial part.

The fundamental difference between the kind of historical claim atheists tend to accept and those theists tend to accept is, in my opinion, plausibility structure and control beliefs. https://twitter.com/adebolublaise/status/1331271854003249152

An atheist (I define 'atheism' as naturalism here) gives priority to the laws of nature and the causal closure of the universe. A theist gives priority to divine causation.

An atheist is going to explain events in terms of the laws of nature and exclude divine causation.

A theist would allow for divine causation.

The thing is, both theists and atheists agree that the natural world exists. So there's no controversy here. The controversy is that the atheist denies that there's anything beyond nature and the theist says God exists beyond nature.

For that reason, any event that occurs within spacetime, even mental events, will be explained by an atheist in terms of nature while being closed to divine intervention, but a theist will be open to divine supernatural intervention.

Since both theists and atheists agree that...

...the natural world exists, they can both agree on natural causation. So both theists and atheists will agree with much of mundane history. Things like natural history, past world wars or migration events, as long as they don't pose a threat to the (a)theist's set of beliefs,...

...will be agreed upon by both. Where the disagreement comes in is the claim that history accounts that make supernatural claims have the same validity or plausibility level as mundane history.

In a nutshell, both won't agree because the theist adds unproven and unwarranted...

...claims of supernatural causation which the atheist rejects. If I see an account such as the Miracle of Fatima—which, to be honest, I've not read much on—my first hunch as an atheist is that, since divine causation is unproven and therefore rejected, it will, as such, be the...

...very last thing I consider as a possible explanation. In fact, many people (methodological naturalists) totally exclude divine causation as a possible explanation.

I hope I've done some justice.

@adebolublaise

Another thing to consider is that not only does the theist disagree with the atheist on divine causation, but theists disagree with one another on wat divine causal claims are valid or provable. So it's not just theists vs atheists on divine causation. It's also Christians vs...

...Muslims vs Hindus vs Mormons vs Wiccans vs Voduists vs psychics and mentalists vs .... You get the point.