You're not so Godless.

[robvalue]

Anything worthy of worship wouldn't want it.

I'm not worshiping anything. Even if god was the greatest thing ever. We can be great mates. I can be thankful. But I'm not fucking crawling around on the floor. If other people want to do that, fine.

[downbeatplumb]

If it was proved somehow there was a god (there isn't) it would be interesting but I wouldn't worship it.
I never understand why some people are so willing to bend at the knees for these ideas. No one prays to gravity and that actually exists.

[Panatheist]

Well you can define words how you wish to. But that will not change generally accepted definitions. People are defining theism a certain way generally and atheism as a rejection of those concepts is still a coherent worldview.

Most definitions of worship will involve more than mere service though defining worship could still be tricky I suppose. In addition to service I'd say it also often involves an emotional component, devotion, prayers, offerings. It often involves meditation and prayers in an anthropomorphic sense even if said deity or object of worship is not a personal force or being. I'm not saying this definition is wholly adequate or universal but it distinguishes mere service as to a government or job.

[robvalue]

Of course it does. It's ridiculous to equate the two.

[Mister Agenda]

The illusion of a "Godless" journey through life is so fragile in its core, that is; cracks can appear so easily with the slightest thought or behavior analysis.
Every bit of human body, the word "human" itself, is nothing more but a group of functions existing to serve: thus we, are nothing but the same biological organism  that is surviving -ironically- via self inflicted services, which are given to the body since birth.

We cannot even comprehend the idea of independence: everything to us -by default- is defined with the same image -that is us-: a client being served; a cause and effect. 
If worship is -in its core- a service, then how is an atheist considered to be a "Godless" human being?

Isn't it more accurate to describe the person's God, as him/herself, his/her nation, his/her government?
If somebody spent all of their lives "worshiping" themselves and claiming to be "atheists", wouldn't that tell us that there are no true atheists?

Consider whatever holy, and spend them years building it up obsessively; and here you go: that's your God. 

Humans are made to worship. Made to serve. 
Atheism might be defined more accurately with it being the lack of belief in a certain "God(s)", but not all Gods. Every person has a God after all. Nobody is Godless.

You don't have to consider anything holy and you certainly don't have to spend years building up anything obsessively.

But congratulations on redefining 'God' into 'whatever you're really interested in'. Just when I thought the word 'God' couldn't get any more meaningless....

[Excited Penguin]

I was confused by this OP until I looked twice at who posted it. Then I understood.

[Minimalist]

Atheism might be defined more accurately with it being the lack of belief in a certain "God(s)", but not all Gods. Every person has a God after all. Nobody is Godless.

Fuck you and your fucking fairy tales too!

[Cato]

God is part of my life because Atlas says so. How convincing.

[Gawdzilla]

Drive-by poster? He's done the same "elsewhere".

[Esquilax]

If worship is -in its core- a service, then how is an atheist considered to be a "Godless" human being?

Yawn. Fallacy of composition: if you define worship as a service, you haven't also established that every service counts as worship. That which is true of a part is not always true of the whole.

And you'd better bring something a little more real than word games to fiat redefine all services as worship, if you want your position to resolve to anything stronger than "it is my opinion, without evidence, that atheists worship themselves."

Fucking hell, this is a sad little tantrum you're having here, Atlas.