[Tirinal]

He's not saying athiesm is logically right. He's saying that athiesm is logically sound. Faith isn't, in whatever "definition" you care to give it, because any faith a person adopts is done so through morality and not logic.

Athiesm isn't a position that requires proof, it's a tabula rasa deduced from sensory input. It's basically saying "I don't really know what the hell is going on because of my limits, but if I had to pick a worldview this is it and maybe the rest will crystallize as we learn more." It's what you default to if you're not exposed to religious indoctrination and don't feel like starting your own. It's entirely possible to arrive at a state of faith from a state of skepticism, but it requires a perfection of mind that neither you nor I possess.

The point is that the core precepts of faith can't evolve due to sensory input because it puts certain facts above others. If I show a Christian of any stripe geological data that infers the Earth is older than is claimed in holy texts, his answer is always some version of "I don't have anything to offer in the way of sensory data, but because my God is greater than external data anything you invent contrary to God is wrong." Which is perfectly logical. But because you arrived initially at that state of belief through a moral process of deciding whether or not to accept developed religion in totality at face value despite your personal imperfection, you forfeit the right to then defend your position on the grounds of logic. While you can logically use the position that some facts are inherently "purer" than others, you can't logically arrive at that position. That's faith.