Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I have some to share in response, and I don't disagree that some arguments against atheism are strawman arguments.
But I do think that calling it reductive, while at the same time explaining all of life in mechanical, chemical and electrical terms seems contradictory.

One theory I've read on Quora somewhere, which for me is intriguing, is one that was used to explain why there might not be any evidence of alien life.
The theory, if I'm remembering correctly (and am too busy ATM to go looking for it) is that alien life forms may have evolved to a size and lifespan so far beyond our own that they may move at a pace that seems glacial for us, and hence we don't recognize it as intelligent or even as a single entity.
This also reminds me of the description of the largest or oldest organism in the world (I believe) in a North American forest (again, too busy to look up the details) and it's been posited that it may have slowly migrated across the North American continent over the span of human history, which on a different time scale, would look as an intelligent being moving around.

For me, this line of thinking could explain apparent lack of evidence for God (though I think there is compelling philosophical reasoning for at least a theistic position).
Of course, this will fall within your own presuppositions for what it might indicate.

But I think that in the same way that God is outside of the physical realm, you wouldn't really find concrete evidence of Him in the physical world.

That requires a leap of faith that many are uncomfortable making, but I have found that there are plenty of atheists and theists who are comfortable making leaps of faith on all sorts of matters (like if their spouses or children love them, or believing in aliens as the creators of life without bothering to ask where the aliens came from).

I don't have a problem with faith, but I hope my mind never becomes so rigid as to not explore other options, or so flexible I never decide to believe in anything.

Regarding your view about the video, one thing I appreciated about the book that I don't remember seeing in the video, is the acknowledgement that God doesn't have anything that one can definitively declare as absolute proof, but rather something that is open enough for you to come to your own conclusion on.

I do think atheism requires faith, as it states a position that is ultimately unverifiable.
But again, I don't have a problem with faith. I think strong atheists (those who proselytize the absence of deity) operate far more on faith than those who are merely skeptical.

Do I think that ancients could comprehend an omniscient, all powerful creator fully?
Of course not. As you say, we barely comprehend anything.

But do I think that ancients had the ability to reason, understand when something was a miracle and when it wasn't? Of course.

For instance, when Mary showed up pregnant, everyone's default reaction wasn't to assume that the God of the universe had impregnated a 14 year old girl with the Messiah that would redeem humanity.
Instead, everyone, including Joseph, went to the logical conclusion, and assumed she'd stepped out on him.

I think there's often a modern day bias against ancient thinkers because they didn't have all of the information we have today.
But I don't believe that instantly makes them wrong.

I don't say any of this in an attempt to intellectually convince you of anything, but rather to explain the areas of my thought that allow me to reason my way to belief in God (though there's more that would go to specifics).

And, btw, thank you for watching the video. It's a long time to commit to watching something where you're not sure you'd get anything out of it, and it sounds like there wasn't much new there for you to buy into, but I appreciate the time you committed to understanding my viewpoint :)