You're not so Godless.

[WinterHold]

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.

[Gawdzilla]

Wrong. I've lived my entire life without any god or gods. This includes stressful times, like 2 years, 3 months and fourteen days in a combat zone, and the months in hospital immediately after that.

You're weak, you need a god, that's fine. But YOU'RE weak, not WE'RE weak. Get that straight.

[The Grand Nudger]

Jesus christ not another theist telling us what atheism means.  No, Atlass, it wouldn't be more accurate.  If a person tells you they don't believe in gods, they don't believe in gods.   Perhaps -you- can't comprehend independence, but that's hardly surprising.   Perhaps -you- imagine that you would need a "god replacement", but that's hardly surprising.

You, may have been made a slave. Some of us were more fortunate.

[Alex K]

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?

You are absolutely begging the question by using the word "serve" for natural phenomena. You put in the assumption of higher purpose, and get out the same. But even granting that, you make a fundamental logic mistake.

Logic 101

Premise A: Bodily functions are a type of service

Premise B: Worship of God is a type of service

From this it does *not* follow that bodily functions are worship of God. This is the classic example gone wrong

A: All men are mortal
B: Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

is correct

A: All men are mortal
B: Socrates is mortal
Therefore all men are Socrates

is wrong.

[Chad32]

As a social species, it can be difficult to obtain true independence. That doesn't mean we need to serve each other. A properly functioning system has everyone on equal footing. Checks and balances to keep those with power from becoming authoritarian and oppressive. That's what happens every time someone in charge ignores checks and balances.

Now if you want to spread the word worship to the point where you consider atheists "worshiping themselves", then the word loses its meaning. No one should be on a pedestal so high that they are worshiped. If someone values themself so much above others, then we just call that being selfish. If they inflict rules on others that they don't also abide by, it's hipocracy. It isn't worship.

[Alex K]

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?

No. Sure, you can do that, but then you dilute the concept of God to be almost meaningless. Atheists as they are usually defined, do not believe in God in the sense of a personal all powerful creator figure. They can worship whatever actually existing thing they want and still be true atheists in that sense. If I'd worship my stereo system because it's so great, that doesn't change a thing about me being an atheist in any sensible sense of the word.

[Little lunch]

I have to agree.
When I was younger I used to worship the pussy.
I would go out all night faithfully praying to it and bowing down whenever I had the chance.
More often than not, I would convert by the end of the night and end up worshipping the toilet bowl.

[Cyberman]

That OP sure uses a lot of words just to say "argument from ignorance".

[robvalue]

I don't worship anyone, as I made clear in my last video. Worship is creepy. You may be programmed to worship, I most certainly am not.

If you have to relabel everything to try and force atheists to not be atheists, you have fun with that.

One thing you're right about: god can mean anything. So it means nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59GTo1olwYA

[drfuzzy]

Nope.
And even if a deity would actually show up and prove its existence, then it would also have to prove that it was worthy of worship.  None of the thousands of deities that humankind has invented have ever met that criteria.