My non-belief has nothing to do with the likability of the supposed deity, so I’m going to stay with atheism.

Answer: In my opinion the answer is likely the same number. There's still a lack of evidence problem.

Now your question does bring up a follow-up question that I've never understood. What use does any monotheistic deity have for a sex or gender?

No, thank you.
No god, no satan, no heaven, no hell.
Gender doesn't matter to me at all.
If I wanted a female goddess to worship, I could easily go with Kali.
I don't believe in her existence either.
So again, no thanks.

I feel that a Goddess would have to meet the same criteria as anything, "Show me the proof of being, not something taken on faith!"

You mean like the Hindu Goddess of death Kali?

I would still be an atheist. I don't believe in worshiping any thing.

Interesting thought experiment!! In my opinion, fewer people would 'bother' to think critically about their beliefs in such a religion. On the other hand, I think more people would gravitate towards being 'in name only' believers, rather than being strict staunch supporters. All in all, I think there would be fewer atheists, but also fewer hardliners. I think I'd still be an atheist, but it's hard to say. If the belief structure I was raised in didn't consistently contradict reality, perhaps I'd have never dissected what I'd been taught.

I think I understand the root of the question.
For me personally, I don't think it would have made a difference, but I can see how it might.
Given your parameters (taking a big leap that there in only one religion) I suspect that for many, if there is nothing (no reason) to make them question the existence or non-existance of their god or godess, it may never occur to them that it's nonsensical.
Often, people are indoctrinated at an age too young to question, and only start to wonder when they are confronted with some sort of event or inconsistency within the religion.
If the religion is set up so that there are never any such events or inconsistencies, fewer people may question the religion's integrity.
I also suspect, that folks who are natural critical thinkers would end up questioning regardless.
So to answer what I think is your question...
Fewer.

I'm probably in the minority (if not the only one), but a goddess would be more appealing to me. I think I would have had a greater affinity for a goddess as a child and teenager. Whether that would have more easily led to indoctrination, I don't know.

The same. Why should it matter.

No effect at all. I am an atheist because I am rational, not because of the imposed misogyny. What you could analyze is how reflective of societies are the gods of different cultures.

Considerably fewer, I expect. I wasn't traumatized, so maybe I would have still thought my way out of the box, but who knows? I'm sympathetic to today's pagans as it is.

Be it a god, a goddess, or a deity of any description, it's not real so I wouldn't believe it. Why would a message of peace and love need tp be wrapped in some bullsh-t story of magical people anyway?

The feminine model has, throughout history, represented nurturing, caring, nesting, raising a child. The woman has, until recently, not. been given the status of near the power of man...hence....there would be fewer.

I found this image, recently done...which created quite a stir; [instagram.com]

A rough guess: One HELL of a lot fewer. My atheism at age 14 was not born of trauma, just deep philosophical consideration, so I THINK I would still be atheist. But so many here were traumatized and victimized by male-dominant religions...

Unless she can be seen and responds actively, I wouldn't think her real. If she popped up and took vengeance on the Kochs and Cheney and that ilk, then I would listen.

The WORLD would be in so much more SIN. Eve was SINFUL TEMPTATION. hahahahahahaha

I would still be since there’d be the same lack of evidence. The only difference might be that I’d be of the opinion (if the being was truly altruistic and not a celestial dictator) that I wish that I could believe it.

It would be just another god created by man, just like the current christain god,with no backing evidence, I'm staying with being an atheist, I would say it would be the same.

I would guess a bit fewer at least, but I probably would be the same.

Yes I would probably never have walked away from religion if it was like that. I don't think I would be alone in this. Boys go to their Mama's. Even macho men. It's natural.

IMO, if this goddess was a cupful of hot and didn't wear much, women would rule the planet. Men would walk with leashes around their necks.

My guess is that there would be fewer. That is, although the evidence should be the same, I suspect there would be fewer inclined to question--i.e., to look at the (lack of) evidence--for a kinder, gentler deity. At least, I think I would have been less inclined.

Is there still substantial evidence of things like evolution, gravity, big universe, deep time exc.. which disprove the stories about her like there are for current versions of religion?
If so then NO.

I hold every god and deity to the same standards. Empirical evidence is required. I'm sure there are already some nice, pro-nature, pro-peace deities being worshiped somewhere in the world. And any god that sits by and allows atrocities, horrific suffering, and inflicts needless cruelty is not worthy of worship.