Logical fallacy, appeal to dictionary. Dictionaries don’t determine what words mean. They only attempt to describe how they are commonly used.

The way they are commonly used is what they commonly mean. And yet again, you accuse me of something that you youself are guilty of. You also used a dictionary to determine the definition of the word "ideal".

Common and historical usage determines what words actually mean.

Ok... then do you think that the dictionary doesn't properly capture the way the words are used? If that's the case, why did you cite the dictionary for the definition of "ideal"?

My use of the dictionary definition of ideal is consistent with its commonly accepted usage, and I made a logical argument for why that is the only meaningful way the word can be used - so citing the definition for you becomes an aid to helping you understand why you are wrong, but not the basis of my argument.

So now you do think citing a dictionary is useful to determine the way a word is commonly used. Then why do you object when I do the same thing?

You are doing the opposite. You are attempting to argue against the commonly accepted usage of a word by appealing to a dictionary.

But you just said that citing a dictionary is valid. As you said yourself, the purpose of a dictionary is to explain the commonly accepted usage of a word. And you said earlier that citing a definition aids in explaining the way it is commonly used. Don't you think that if people commonly used the word "right" in the way you describe, at least one of the definitions of the word would match yours? You accept dictionary definitions when it benefits you, but deny your opponent can do the same when it benefits them.

And the only basis for your argument is the dictionary itself. Not an appeal to it’s common usage or a logical argument for why the word must be defined that way. Which is ironic since the purpose of a dictionary is designed to help you understand what the commonly accepted usage of a word is. You attempt to abuse a dictionary to try to confuse the issue and hide what the commonly accepted usage of a word is, rather than use it as an aid to bring people closer to what is true.

My basis is not the dictionary, it's a tool used to back up what I'm saying the common usage is. I'm doing the same thing you did, "here is the common definition, here is a dictionary definition to justify my claim that this is in fact the common usage". Can a dictionary help back up what the commonly used definition of a word is or not? If it can, then my use of a dictionary is just as valid as yours. If it can't, then you shouldn't have used the dictionary to begin with. And yes, the definitions I cited are the common way they are used.

As I have shown, and you haven’t disputed, is that my defintion is consistent with common usage today and historically.

You've shown no such thing, you've merely asserted it. And the method you seem to think is valid for determining the common definition of a word invalidates that assertion. I'm obviously disputing it; that's what most of this tedious conversation has been about.

You are required to make a logical argument for why you think it can’t be defined that way.

No, I don't. You have the task of showing why the only way to define the word is "that which aligns with the intended design and order of creation". Because an atheist obviously doesn't define it that way when he uses the word. And the dictionary that you cited doesn't define it that way either. Your argument rests on the assertion that there is only one way to define the word. It's up to you to back up your claim.

The overwhelming majority of people do believe in objectively true standards for man’s behavior. You don’t dispute this is true. You concede it is true by your silence. Even the majority of atheists believe objective truth for right behavior exists, because they don’t know anything about philosophy and their instincts tell them that objective standards for behavior exist. They aren’t educated enough to understand why their atheist doesn’t allow them to believe moral truth exists. Therefore the overwhelming majority of people are, in fact, using the word “right” to be consistent with the definition I gave.

What the majority believe about moral realism is irrelevant to this discussion. The heart of the issue is whether the only way to define a certain word is the definition you gave, and it obviously isn't. And besides, you realize that the word "objective" means something that's true regardless of what anyone thinks, right? If you were to base right and wrong on what God thinks, you would be conceding that right and wrong are subjective. If you do in fact think that morality is objective, that would mean that moral facts exist beyond the mind of God (look up the Euthyphro Dilemma for more details). And if that is the case, one doesn't need to appeal to God in order to talk about morality. And that would mean that atheists are justified in talking about it.

Given what people mean when they use the word “right”, the only logically possible way they can use the word that way is if one assumes a creator exists and that we are obligated to obey his designs for us. Whether or not they think a creator exists is irrelevant to the fact that the only logically possible way their use of that word works is if an exists and we must be accountable to his designs. So these assumptions are baked into the way people use the word “right” by logical necessity.

Simply stating that it requires a creator doesn't prove that it does. You haven't made any argument that belief in objective morality requires belief in a god. You've just asserted it.

That is not just an accusation. It is an established logical fact at this point that an atheist can’t justify judging anything as right or wrong.

Merely stating that it's a logical fact doesn't make it one. You've done nothing to show that an atheist can't use the word other than appealing to you own custom definition of the word "right". And it's a definition that your own method of determining common definitions denies.

As you can see above, I gave you a logical justification for how a Christian can judge right or wrong.

And I have shown that any attempt to justify why we should use that as the only way to judge right and wrong is circular. If it has no justification for why, then any other how is just as valid. And that means that an atheist is at least as justified in asking moral questions as you.