All f this would be much easier if there were a God. Then she could tell us who is right. But since these are actually ideas of men, it always comes down to my invisible sky man is better than your invisible sky man. No one has more blood on his hands than God.
Evidence for God includes:
1. The complexity of the universe combined with the entropy that exists therein;
2. The fact that there isn't any pure random, rather everything exists through cause and effect;
3. And the fact that many millions have experienced the Spirit of God in their hearts.
Put these together. Investigate and think about them deeply. You will see that God is not simply a man in the sky.
The blood God has on His hands is the blood of His Son, Jesus, Who shed His blood on the cross, willingly, so that mankind has the opportunity to be saved from eternal entropy. God is as He is called, God. Because of what He made people to be, this was the only way to save any of them when they condemned themselves. He can do it because He is God. Even the blood on His hands is righteous.
When are you going to look at these things in detail so that you stop condemning yourself?
I have. I was once a Christian minister. The deeper I looked the deeper down the rabbit hole the questions went.
As Spendulus noted, this is way off topic so I'm not going to pursue it in depth here. But Christianity's mythology is MUCH older than Christianity, and the language of the first book of the Christian bible is openly polytheistic. It's origins are Sumerian, and more specifically, Babylonian. The Jewish culture was an offshoot of Babylon. Much of their mythology is disproven, even historically.
Further, though, let's look at the Jesus myth. The idea that Neil and Bob did a crime, but it's ok now, because we took Jesus and crucified him. If that's "divine justice", then the very idea of divine justice is without merit. And that's just how ridiculous it is on it's surface. Go deeper, it gets more ridiculous.
That the Universe operates according to internally consistent "laws" is not in itself evidence for, or against, a god or grand creator. Even the proven FACT of evolution does not negate or prove the God concept, though Christians seem to think it does.
What I can state with as close to absolute certainty as you can get in a philosophical discussion is that if there is a god, or even many gods, then they do not want the worship and adoration of the insignificant humans on a third rate planet orbiting a minor star in the eastern fringe of a minor galaxy. I state this because if there are such, and they did so desire, it would not be up for debate. It would be made plain and obvious.
Given the above, which I hold to be axiomatic, there are really only a few conclusions. Three that I can see.
One: There are gods, but they don't care beyond the act of creation. This is consistent with your points.
Two: There are gods, but they are not as powerful as religious people claim, and thus they cannot prove their existence to us. This negates all religions that posit a god.
Three: There are no gods.
Given that I see all three possibilities as equally valid, I follow no religion. I do not believe there are gods, thus I am an atheist. I cannot prove there are no gods, thus I am an agnostic. This is also an answer to Ume, as he made some claims about atheism that are patently false. Atheism is a term largely coined by the religious. While there is a small subset of those who do not believe in gods who do indeed make the positive claim that there are no gods, they are a minority. Most atheists are like me. We simply do not believe in gods. We do not take a stand of faith that there certainly are no gods, but we demand extraordinary proof before we will entertain the idea as anything more than outdated explanations posited by primitive men prior to having better tools.
The burden of proof is on the persons making a claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.