Tornado Strikes Junkyard. Builds Working Automobile

Definitions and meanings are what are typically found in dictionaries, Arlon. The things you argue about with them and 'win'. Remember? A label is a piece of paper, plastic film, cloth, metal, or other material affixed to a container or product, on which is written or printed information or symbols about the product or item. I hope that helps.

But what defines an atheist is not divorce, income, or education. It is a lack of belief in God. Divorcees are those best defined by divorce and high earners by their income. I remember you insisting that your definitions are necessarily arbitrary, need to be mutually agreed and that such definitions can easily be wrong. One might just as well compare Christians and offshore fishermen with equal profit in logic. Well, then: QED.

To suggest that Christians have no moral code is nonsense, as those who remember the 10 Commandments, for a start, will recall. In fact it is arguable that most of Scripture, being amenable to moral instruction, just as Timothy says, ultimately offers a code by which to live by.  To suggest that many Christians have no fear (or at least a strong regard for the imperatives) of their purported god is also wrong. So now you are wrong twice.

But here you are wrong for a third time, since the term always has been as far as I am aware 'infidel' denoting a person of a religion other than one's own, especially a Christian to a Muslim, a Muslim to a Christian, or a gentile to a Jew. That's not just in my dictionary either.

But one may not deny or affirm any fact based on a definition. Your words not mine. So now you are in error again.

It has always been a rule with me (and in fact this is standard practice among social scientists) to take at face value the claims of self-defining groups, like religious people, about what they believe and how they see themselves. This is distinct, btw from an argument from popularity. So your own logic notwithstanding I will go with the virtually unanimous view of Christians that, whatever else they may disagree on, they in fact follow a religion, and are religious - but thank you anyway. It is also, despite your odd claim above not a definition which is 'only found in just one dictionary' either.  In fact your own definition of Christianity, I would venture to suggest, is found in no dictionaries as all. So with you are wrong, now for a fifth time.

As I mentioned above, it best practice to ask people who hold beliefs what they themselves understand their beliefs to be and how they define themselves, since they are best placed to know. Everything you have said is just the usual highly personal opinion without substantiation, something moreover outside of the privileged group. And what is submitted without substantiation can be dismissed on the same basis. But you have been told this before.

 Once again: you may not deny or affirm any fact based on a definition (here being your introduction of new terms 'lax' and 'circumspect'). Your words not mine. So now you are in error for the last time.

And you didn't overcome the reticence you have shown when questioned over your views on the fossil record or the effects of ice melting on sea levels. Evasion noted, again.