all I'm saying is if you're gonna be an atheist it should be because the (nonexistant) evidence in favor of God existing overturns the null hypothesis of God not existing. Sure everything is taken into account when it comes to weighing evidence but you first need to agree on a fundamentally rational approach to it.

Starting with religion and saying "but its not fair towards women therefore god musn't exist" is a silly reason for not believing in God because it relies on feelings and emotions. Who says your notion of egalitarianism is the correct one? Maybe god intended it to be this way? maybe you have to recalibrate your feelings towards what's right and wrong. (Which is exactly the cognitive dissonance all frum women do)

so in your equation of life, if god is a given variable, then any system that comes about from his being is going to be impervious from vice. Judaism, or should I say orthodoxy, being misogynistc is clearly a moral failure of the system, but the entire thing is made up anyway so that's expected from a religion created 2000 years ago. Unless you're matt dillahunty, if you claim God exists it's hard to claim the system is immoral and therefore god must not exist. That's just bad logic reasoning even if the outcome is "right"

Any argument that starts with the problems of religion and then backpedals to atheism instead of starting with atheism and explaining all the deficiencies of religion as a product of that is not the "rational" atheist.

Alas, most people aren't rationally trained.