Nietzsche sums it up pretty well:
- "he denies the freedom of the will"
For Spinoza everything is caused by previous events in a strict determinism (Ethics book I), up to what he called "God or Nature", the entirety of things and ideas, which is its own cause. Everything including people's volitions and desires. So all of our actions are just the consequence of the state of the world, and it is not in our power to change its course. For if we have any desire to do so, this desire itself must have been caused by the state of the world, and so on.
Ethics book II, note on proposition XXXV:
For instance, men are mistaken in thinking themselves free ; their opinion is made up of consciousness of their own actions, and ignorance of the causes by which they are conditioned. Their idea of freedom, therefore, is simply their ignorance of any cause for their actions. As for their saying that human actions depend on the will, this is a mere phrase without any idea to correspond thereto. What the will is, and how it moves the body, they none of them know
- "he denies [...] teleology"
Spinoza denied that things existed for an ultimate purpose, including tools we create with a use in mind, as this purpose is valid for the human mind only but is no concern to God or the universe at large, as whatever we do it's still the universe realising itself as it was supposed to do from the beginning of time. It follows that people have no ultimate duty to follow.
Ethics, appendix to book I:
All such opinions spring from the notion commonly entertained, that all things in nature act as men themselves act, namely, with an end in view. It is accepted as certain, that God himself directs all things to a definite goal (for it is said that God made all things for man, and man that he might worship him). I will, therefore, consider this opinion, asking first, why it obtains general credence, and why all men are naturally so prone to adopt it? secondly, I will point out its falsity ; and, lastly, I will show how it has given rise to prejudices about good and bad, right and wrong, praise and blame, order and confusion, beauty and ugliness, and the like.
(also referenced in the preface to part 4)
- "he denies [...] the moral world-order"
- "he denies [...] evil"
It follows from the previous point that Spinoza denied absolute morality. People have no control over their desires and actions, no sacred duty. Also, he rejected the notion of absolute good and evil: goodness or badness are not property of things, but a relationship from things to other things (“Music is good to the melancholy, bad to those who mourn, and neither good nor bad to the deaf.”) and therefore nothing is inherently good or bad (evil).
In Spinoza's mind virtue is its own reward by maximizing joyful affects and power to act, and only ignorant people behave virtuously by fear of punishment or hope of reward.
Ethics, preface to part IV:
As for the terms good and bad, they indicate no positive quality in things regarded in themselves, but are merely modes of thinking, or notions which we form from the comparison of things one with another. Thus one and the same thing can be at the same time good, bad, and indifferent. For instance, music is good for him that is melancholy, bad for him that mourns ; for him that is deaf, it is neither good nor bad.
- "he denies [...] the unegoistic"
Not sure what Nietzsche means by that, but I'll go on a limb and assume he refers to self mortification like guilt, shame, etc... Spinoza also believed that we can be motivated by two kinds of affects, sadness and joy, and greatly prefered joy, as it is the manifestation of an increase in our power to act. For example, prefer the joy to strive for bettering oneself rather than the shame of not being good enough.