Where does the OP specify a personal god? Are you saying that the OP is not about the nonexistence of a god, but merely about the nonexistence of a personal god? The OP seems to be a claim of the nonexistence of a god in general, and only assumes that if a god can do something (such as show itself) that it necessarily will (which would mean that this god would have not free will itself, which is contrary to the common attributes of a god). I did not say it was, only that lack of evidence is not proof, which you seem to agree with. If you are a sane adult, believing in your chair is not a real choice. And just by definition, being compelled (forced) is antithetical to freedom. The OP author is obviously not a believer, although I do agree that any god can be detected by the senses, as any believer "sees" god in the world around them with the same senses you possess. I never said "guarantee", but certainly a lack of compelling (forcing) evidence allows for a freedom of choice. Again, as an atheist, you are definitively the least qualified to make claims of what a "religion is about". Even within one religion and its scripture, there is a gradient of understanding, from what is taught to children to what a theologian learns in seminary, or the like. You consistently argue from the perspective of a child, so I assume the books you read had pretty pictures. Who said anything about a "right to not believe in the existence of a chair"? Seems you keep evading the question. Can a sane person deny the existence of a chair? It is a simple question that really should not vex you so. If something is proven to be real, there is no rational choice. So no one had free will until we had "clear knowledge of what is real and what isn't"? Since science is always advancing, do you then assume that no one has free will? So you insist that a god must be personal and that you must be a slave. Sounds like you have some pretty definite beliefs about a god.