Don't they ever stop to think and maybe figure out than an all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent being shouldn't have such a hard time communicating with us?
What a great question! I know it was most likely a rhetorical one, but here are the possible answers:
1. Because it should be easier for him to communicate with us and has not made it so, there actually is no God.
2. God could communicate with us all in a more direct manner, but has some reason for not doing so.
3. Our nature (either innate or due to some corrupting factor) limits our ability to hear clearly his communication.
So, either there is no God, the limited nature of communication is determined by God, or the limited nature of communication is or was determined by us.
There are strengths and weakness in all these explanations, of course.
The strengths of number one is that it offers what appears to be the simplest explanation. Its weakness is that it is a non sequitor. Moreover, it equates human rationalization with that of a being in which it defines in a way that is so very non human. How can we with our very limited nature presume to assert what an omniscient and omnipotent being should do? It would be like an ant presuming to question the motives of a man. And with that analogy we are even closer in our nature to an ant than God is to a man. Though this answer may be the one for the atheist, it actually commits the cardinal sin that atheists attribute to theists--anthropomorphizing a deity. God does't act the way we humans would or believe he should; therefore, there cannot be a God.
The strength of number two accounts for the weakness of the first explanation. God acts in ways that are only known to God and may very well be incomprehensible to us mere mortals. One possible explanation in support of this has to do with free will. The more we have direct knowledge of God, of pure goodness, the more difficult it is for us to choose anything but. The weakness of this argument, however, is that it offers no understandable reason as to why a being whom some claim always has our best interest in mind seems so aloof.
The strength of number three is that it accepts as reality the many accounts of millions of people who claim that God has spoken directly to them in various ways--even if the manner seems unclear. To dismiss their claims out of hand is to claim they are all deluded. If millions and millions of human beings many who are rational in many areas of their life are this easily deluded then delusion is arguably a component of human nature itself. If true then this undercuts the basis for all kinds of knowledge--not just spiritual--even rational understanding. If deluded people are unaware that they are deluded, how do you know you are not deluded about anything?! Human beings clearly have limitations when it comes to knowledge, the strength of the third argument takes into account those limitations. It also dovetails nicely with the myth of Genesis. Our own actions estrange us from God, rather than the other way around.
The weakness of number three is that in life we have to accept that something in this world is knowable (otherwise the pursuit of knowledge comes to a dead stop) and since God by definition is the most ubiquitous something-- as his hand is in everything--we should have some ability to know him easily enough.
I think your inclination to any one of these explanations is based upon the assumptions one already brings to the question.
BTW--I love the headline and its reference to Yeat's "Second Coming." What a great poem!