"Why not manifest himself to the whole earth in an unequivocal manner, much more capable of convincing us than these private revelations which seem to accuse the Divinity of an annoying partiality for some of his creatures? The all-powerful, should he not heave more convincing means by which to show man than these ridiculous metamorphoses, these pretended incarnations, which are attested by writers so little in agreement among themselves? In place of so many miracles, invented to prove the divine mission of so many legislators revered by the different people of the world, the Sovereign of these spirits, could he not convince the human mind in an instant of the things he wished to make known to it? Instead of hanging the sun in the vault of the firmament, instead of scattering stars without order, and the constellations which fill space, would it not have been more in conformity with the views of a God so jealous of his glory and so well-intentioned for mankind, to write, in a manner not subject to dispute, his name, his attributes, his permanent wishes in ineffaceable characters, equally understandable to all the inhabitants of the earth?" Percy B. Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism

Shelley's questions, grossly atypical for his era, are and have traditionally been often answered by what I would call canned responses of which "God wants us to seek Him" is perhaps the most common. Another common reply, "God will not force his will upon us", is offensive to the mind. Neglecting momentarily the biblical foundation attached to such responses and truly analyzing the validity of Shelley's questions and the appropriateness of these rebuttals, one may quickly find that one is to be regarded as superior to the other. Arguably, however, those associated with the doctrines attacked by Shelley may fail to ever agree with what I shall provide as the more justified position. It may be, in fact, that I am utterly wrong and blinded by my own subconscious quest for philosophical vindication. Every effort will be taken to analyze these positions as neutrally as possible. It is often claimed, and occasionally correctly so, that atheists seek to justify their willful disobedience to the perceived command to seek and know God. Some rebellious former believers and those lifelong atheists whose lifestyles grossly deviate from social norms may truly use their atheism as a mechanism to "sear [their consciences] with a hot iron". Indeed, some "atheists" are no more non-believers than faithful believers. In addressing Shelley's questions, I wish to speak only of truly unconvinced atheists who are not solely seeking freedom from some real or perceived oppression of their consciences. I shall also commit to speaking only of true Christians rather than name-only Christians for whom the label provides some social benefit.

Unequivocal proof is certainly within the realm of the abilities of a powerful deity. Being all-knowing as well, he/she/it/they would anticipate the needs of at least a portion of creation. These people are, like "Doubting Thomas", unable to simply believe fantastical stories solely through the account of others. It cannot be adequately emphasized that we demand this type of proof for the majority of what we believe about our tangible, physical world. When a drug company claims that erectile dysfunction can be cured by a concoction, we do not believe the smiling faces in magazine and television ads. We do not even take the word of the pharmaceutical companies. Peer-reviewed, independently conducted studies provide the authority needed for a majority of the consumer population to trust the claims made by the drug maker. This is not because a company cannot conduct proper research, but rather that there are countless examples of deception through which the public has learned to distrust self-praise. Religious proselytizers could be truthfully asserting that their deity is the one true path to an equally questionable afterlife. Why, though, should a skeptic believe them? If, for example, a believer encouraged those suffering from ED to give all they have to charity, attend religious meetings, and have a personal relationship with a guy they have no reason to believe exists in the form the believer suggests, would the ED sufferer be justified in questioning the claim that his infirmity would be healed after he dies and receives a glorified body? I use actual statements rather than absurd parallels in hopes to illustrate that it is rational to doubt such stories. The personal conviction of the believer has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the claims being made. Indeed, those believing they are deceased presidents, while certifiably insane, share similarly strong personal convictions. In "The Age of Reason", Thomas Paine, himself a deist, wrote the following of miracles:

"Of all the modes of evidence that ever were invented to obtain belief to any system or opinion to which the name of religion has been given, that of miracle, however successful the imposition may have been, is the most inconsistent. For, in the first place, whenever recourse is had to show, for the purpose of procuring that belief (for a miracle, under any idea of the word, is a show) it implies a lameness or weakness in the doctrine that is preached. And, in the second place, it is degrading the Almighty into the character of a show-man, playing tricks to amuse and make the people stare and wonder. It is also the most equivocal sort of evidence that can be set up; for the belief is not to depend upon the thing called a miracle, but upon the credit of the reporter, who says that he saw it; and, therefore, the thing, were it true, would have no better chance of being believed than if it were a lie."

He is demanding first that we employ a more careful mechanism than the presence or absence of miracles to determine the validity of belief in the gods and secondly and more subtly that we should be careful of those who speak cunningly crafted words to ascertain our beliefs. Stories of miracles performed by witch doctors illustrate Paine's point. Those willing to accept such personal and/or impersonal reports of miracles without tangible evidence and a complete understanding of the physical constraints of the universe may be willing to convert to the witch doctor's religion. It is likely that Christians believe either that the stories are completely untrue or that the miracles are the power of demonic forces attempting to secure the souls of the unsaved. Even the Christians who apply the latter reasoning are skeptical of the veracity of the story. They question whether things have been stretched to encourage belief or extract donations. Atheists apply the same skepticism to ALL religious stories, knowing that humans have the tendency to embellish their stories whether willfully or unwittingly.

Moving on from miracles, personal testimony is often employed as a means of securing belief. Salvation stories, laced with emotion and non-sequiturs, are designed to lead the unconvinced closer to the deity. They may recount details of their cessation of drugs, spousal abuse, viewing of pornography, or depressive behaviors in hopes of proving that the power of God is real and able to assist those in need. The existence of radical changes as a result of a conversion process say nothing about the truth of a position. Child molesters may experience a reduction in stress immediately after the act and may claim that the cosmos agrees that molestation is the most appropriate lifestyle for humans, but this definitely does not follow. Additionally, as with stories of miracles, personal "miracles" or testimonies are subject to confirmation bias and unintentional half-truths. These colorful additions are not specific to Christians attempting to convince people of their god, but rather are shared by most including vegans, runners, historians, and educators. If a premise is dependent upon personal testimony or the report of miraculous events, the most rational position is disbelief. This is not to say that the conclusions of the believers are necessarily incorrect. It is possible that a deity is drawing them and powerful events did indeed transpire as they submitted and/or responded to the callings, but there is no reason that the unconvinced should feel compelled by this to convert.

It is said that God is looking for those who would seek "him" regardless of the evidence. Some maintain that creation or our heart speaks to us of the truth of gods. While this may be exactly what is happening, this discredits true atheists and necessarily places us in either the liar or seared camp, if not both. It states that everyone living or dead has been convinced and has somehow lied about or repressed their convictions. This is simply not the case and parallels naive atheists who wish to claim that all believers are lying to themselves or are too stupid to see the reality of their foolish beliefs. Both positions seek to belittle those with opposing views. It may indeed be true that atheists knowingly or unknowingly reject the voice within or without calling for belief. Casual surveys will at least call this into question; true atheists simply do not feel this pull and are not actively rejecting a relationship with a deity. Contrarily, many atheists readily state that the belief in a deity is not something that they blindly reject, rather they are simply unconvinced that any do exist and refuse to follow an idea without concrete evidence. In other words, atheists refuse to seek after the gods on the basis of miracle reports, testimonies, or because others tell them that the everyone feels a pull to know God.

Shelley demanded irrefutable proof, rejecting easily questionable "evidences" such as those we previously investigated. Many Christians suggest that such a demand is incorrect since God, they say, is not going to force people to do anything, including believe in "him", against their wills. This integrates seamlessly into the position that God wants to be pursued. Contrary to common sense, they subtly maintain that knowing that something exists and wilfully choosing to pursue it rather than a myriad of options is inferior to devoting one's life to a feeling that something exists. We are told that it has to be this way because God has to allow free will. If we were to all know that a god exists, we may be forced to believe without the ability to make a choice to follow freely. Is it not possible to fathom an alternative to this dilemma? Could it be that, just as we can freely choose to marry or remain single, God could leave us unenslaved? Not allowing for personal choice in the matter of whether to worship a god or to remain free from masters directly forces; the principle of free will paired with necessary worship of the deity is self-contradictory. This is a violation of free will. Moving on a bit to the question of whether evidence violates free will, one must ask whether evidences for or against a scientific theory necessitate belief. The Theory of Evolution, for example, does not demand belief or disbelief. We are never forced to bow against our will in the presence of scientific evidences. God could easily have done this and remained the sovereign, one-true one that Christians believe. I do not see a simple way to rectify this position, even if I were a believer. In fact, as a believer, I often deferred this question to the day when I ended up "before his throne".

In light of such honestly personal opinions, I maintain that, at least in my opinion, the most logical position is the default position of disbelief. I do not go so far as to utilize "atheist" in the positive atheism sense in which there is definitively no god, a position which is necessarily a position of faith. My position is simply that I have no gods and do not believe that any of the suggested gods are credible. Given more concrete proofs, I, along with many others, would gladly re-analyze my disbelief. At this point, the only evidences offered for gods include personal statements given by those who already believe and who have at least a social interest and investment in the propagation of their message, appeals to pursue without evidence, and claims that we already have been drawn but we may be rejecting it. Ultimately, it is dishonest to claim that atheists are deceived and willfully disobedient simply because we are honestly unconvinced. The believers may be correctly convinced of their gods, though others who demand more proofs should not instantly be considered to be demonically oppressed or wickedly disobedient. These positions do nothing for the cause they seek to justify. Just as Percy Shelley requested unequivocal proofs for the deities, every religious statement not based on obvious natural truths should be equally analyzed and will, I'm certain, be found intellectually and factually lacking. Believers are told by their books what truth is regardless of evidence and often contrary to their own personal judgment of reality. To force others to bow to unproven stories will never win over honest doubt. Conversely, honestly doubting will never stand as proof that a claim is untrue. I simply maintain that the former is more rational given human variance and our propensities to be creative with our stories. A god demanding worship and obedience would surely know these individual differences and control for them in his/her/its/their experiment of life.

Sources Cited
=========

Shelley, Percy. The Necessity of Atheism. Oxford, 1811.

Paine, Thomas. The Age of Reason: Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology. Paris, 1794.