what brought them to their conclusion.

1. There is no testable or reliable means to prove that a god exists. Science has already explained many phenomena previously attributed to a god, and they don't see that progress stopping.

2. If there is a benevolent god who truly wanted a relationship with humans, wouldn't it be more obvious? And, the answer people give is that you have to have faith for that relationship, yet there is no reason for such faith

God cannot be both omniscient and have free will. This is a logical paradox. Plus, an all-knowing, all-seeing god allowing souls to be born into hideous circumstances, with hideous health issues just doesn't add up

Around the world, god is seen differently by different people. Claiming one is better than the other, when no proof exists for any of them, is a futile effort.

He said that, if someday something happened that changed these foundational problems, then he'd reconsider is standpoint.

There was more but this is the gist