If I told you right now that an atheist can believe Jesus really did rise from the dead and remain an atheist, you might reasonably assume I've lost my mind. However, following the philosophy of atheism through, it is entirely possible for an atheist to believe Jesus rose. Atheism, by its definition, denies only the existence of God. As such, it denies God's hand in the origin of the universe, life, consciousness, and all things. Thus, as long as an atheist continues to deny God's hand in the resurrection, they absolutely can believe Jesus rose while remaining an atheist.
The origin of the universe, whether atheists admit it or not, was a miracle. There are no natural laws that could create the universe. Atheists, of course, usually have their stories. The Big Bang, for example, is an attempt to explain the origin of the universe without God. "There are no natural laws that could create the universe", to an atheist, merely means we haven't yet found such natural laws.
The origin of life, whether atheists admit it or not, was a miracle. The law of biogenesis states that life can only come into existence with pre-existing parents similar to itself. We have found no other alternative means to create life. Yet. Atheists continue to posit naturalistic theories, none of which are plausible (and some of which have actually been tested and failed miserably), but to this day, no alternative has been found. But atheists keep looking, because again, the absence of natural laws that can create life from non life simply means we haven't yet found such natural laws.
The origin of consciousness, whether atheists admit it or not, is a miracle. Nothing in this world, including recently deceased living organisms, is conscious like life. Everything in the universe is predictable. Even your own body can be made to move involuntarily, and yet you can usually move it voluntarily. We cannot create consciousness artificially, even given all the physical materials. Yet. Just because we have not yet found any natural laws that create consciousness does not mean they don't exist.
So let's suppose an atheist acknowledges the resurrection of Jesus. Let's suppose they believe the entire New Testament is perfectly historically accurate. Jesus not only rose from His own grave, but raised many others, cured many sick people, controlled the weather, walked on water, fed more than 5,000 people with a single snack basket etc. These are all things we can't do. Yet. But maybe, just maybe, we could, and Jesus was just a genius ahead of His own time. He knew how to use nature in ways we have yet to discover.
That last one sounds silly, but only because it is unusual. Philosophically, it is identical to all the other "yets". We can't explain the origin of the universe naturalistically. Yet. We can't explain the origin of life naturalistically. Yet. We can't explain the origin of consciousness naturalistically. Yet. These are all things which, with the information we do have, strongly point to the truth of Christianity, and yet the atheist brushes them all aside, appealing to some future time when we may discover something we yet have not. If we are willing to search for natural explanations for the previous three miracles, why not also search for a naturalistic explanation for Jesus' resurrection?
In fact, while atheists usually do not acknowledge that Christ rose, more sophisticated atheists can often be found to acknowledge the evidence that He did. They either just A. try to come up with a naturalistic explanation for it, or B. refuse to come up with an alternative explanation for it, either appealing to a future explanation that may be discovered, or just being content that no alternative does exist. So why not just acknowledge the resurrection, which would at the very least explain all the facts, and just come up with a naturalistic explanation? Or simply do what they do with everything else they can't explain: There is a naturalistic explanation, we just don't know what it is. Yet.
Such an epistemology is intellectually bankrupt. Those who think this way will never find God, not because the evidence is lacking, but because Christ Himself could force their fingers through the holes in his limbs and side, and they would still say there is a naturalistic explanation they do not know yet. This is not a matter of the intellect, but a matter of the heart. This mindset precludes the correct answer purely because it is not naturalistic.
But what's the point in this mindset? Why seek a natural explanation for everything when it's obvious the answer is divine? The same God who gave you life offers you the right to save it, with the sole condition of putting your faith in Him. And yet, you put your faith in silly lies like Evolution, and abiogenesis, and the Big Bang. It will never make sense.