One comment about your face palms:
We might use it in two cases: Either we saw or did hear something that is dumb, or we are the dumbs and didn't get it and now we want act like, we did get it, but it is dumb.

What constitutes evidence for God, though? How would you, or could you possibly, know it if you see it? Religious people would argue that existence and consciousness itself along with it's incredible levels of complexity and design are "proof" (I would say "clues") of God's work and presence, not to mention religious revelation and scripture. Mathematicians, scientists and philosophers want rational, empirical and physical evidence (not necessarily in that respective order). We're not even at the point to determine if such kind of evidence can be ascertained. It's easy to say you don't believe because of the lack of evidence, but if you don't know what it is you're looking for exactly it would be a fruitless effort much like trying to find a shadow in the dark.

Without the eyes to see and the ears to hear and the mind to think, any information including the useful kind will be white noise. You already see the world and everything in it through filters like your level/type of education and your personal beliefs. It wouldn't be difficult to imagine disregarding anything that doesn't fit into your model of understanding.

I have no idea, but I'm sure that an omnipotent being could come up with something to convince us of its existence.

So I should believe despite the lack of evidence, because even if there were to be evidence, I might not recognize it. That's a real convincing argument.

This is the crux of it. If I don't have evidence, and God hasn't been 'personally revealed' to me in a convincing fashion, then why should I believe?

And if that's a decent angle for accepting faith-based arguments, how do theists rule out every other possible religious entity?

See, the truth is that most theists go through a similar pattern in ruling out every other religion -- don't see any evidence for Zeus, arguments for Zeus aren't compelling and often downright flawed, strong probability that Zeus is fictitious creation similar to other myths, haven't had any personal revelation of Zeus... thus I do not espouse belief in Zeus and would challenge those who claimed his existence as rationale for teaching Zeusism and affecting societal institutions in other ways. Almost every argument they make when challenging atheists they themselves make as well when applying to the other 99.9% of religious beliefs created by man. Which is why it is so telling Splendour wouldn't answer one excruciatingly simple question I asked 3 times today: Why don't you believe in Islam and Allah? She smelled a trap and ran.

Yes, you should. Do more of that, and less of posting.

How fast you guys tend to prove my statements.

ctyri! I have a question: Could you please explain what the word worship means? Based on your explanation, would you say that it is possible that someone doesn't worship God, but something else? (Whatever {a horse, a piece of paper, his own body or mind, a woman...} he is worshiping doesn't matter , I only want to know if worshiping is possible {regarding the way you define worship}, even if someone does not believe in God?)
Let me ask it another way:
When would you say that someone is worshiping something? Which conditions must be true?

M-w.com

What is the point? So you can say atheists "worship" science or something else? I can't wait -- more SMP/RGT fun with words in lieu of a supported argument.

I hope you are an acknowledged teacher and a good teacher. Good teachers have patient. If you don't have it, or If you don't want to have it in this case (cause you think I am not a good student), I don't ask you anything any more.
If we don't understand the meanings of words, we may say something contradictorily without realizing it and sometimes I mean with the word something else than you and we realize it too late. So I think that some Keywords should be explained before a discussion, so that one of us cannot abuse the different meanings of the words.
From the definition above, I don't get it fully, is it possible that someone worships something that is not God, that is not beyond natural beings, like a woman, or a leader or money, or....?

I'm not interested in debating multiple meanings for common words. If you have a point, make it. If not, good night.

But why not? We use this type of evidence all day every day to be able to function well at every single aspect of life that isn't related to religion (or astrology, or homeopathy, or whatever happens to be your cup of tea), and that seems to work fine for you. Now all of a sudden the rules need to be different for your specific form of superstition merely because you declare that it's special, or because you want it to be true.

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense.

And I am not interested to discuss with someone who will change the meaning for common words every time he recognizes that his assumptions has been wrong. Good night.

I'm inclined to say you can't worship something if you don't think it's divine. You might get some derivative usages like "Bob likes golf so much he practically worships the game" but those are usually going to be intentional hyperbole. If you have some clear case that leads me to believe otherwise I'm open to it.

Cite please. Honestly I have no clue what you're talking about.

as a sane person you probably shouldn't.

Would you agree with the following claim:
Free minded people, intellectuals and philosophers make first exact definitions (they way they do understand them) for common words and than they make assumptions and they are willing to debate about their definitions and assumptions. Dictators and fascists don't.

Define free. And minded. And people...

I know what worship means, and even posted the definition for you.

Can we move on to a point already?

I defined free and minded: people who are willing to discuss about their definitions and assumptions, in contrast to dictators and faschists.
You know what worship is, I don't. You gave a definition but it was not clear to me based on those definitions if it is possible to worship other things than God.

I looked and have never once used the word 'worship' in this thread prior to your demand for my definition. And after repeated attempts to get you to make some attempt at a point regarding this important definition (which I posted from the dictionary for your enlightenment, and another poster directly answered your inquiry), it is clear that you have no point to make regarding anything I've written but are in some endless loop on this word. Ctrl+Alt+Delete and reboot yourself. Good night.

I have a point but you will not understand it, cause you're not even capable to answer what the verb worship implies. How can you expect that serious people discuss with you, when you have never thought about the implications of what you are saying? When you have never thought about the meaning of words, using the words like a parrot?
I did ask you 3 questions, one you did answer with the help of a dictionary and 2 of them you didn't answer.
Do you understand now, that it was Splendours intelligence that made splendour running away?

Except I never used the word. So please stop trolling the thread with your lunatic fantasies. And the definition for worship has been provided multiple times in the thread. It has both a divine connotation (e.g., worhsiping God) and a colloquial connotation (e.g., worshiping Tiger Woods' ability).

I answered you. Can I have the rest of the argument now?

What is with idolizing? If we idolize something aren't we worshiping it? Can we idolize something else but God or a supernatural thing? I mean if idolizing is worshiping and we can idolize something that differs from God than we can worship something what is not God, isn't this true?