you know i made a really good observation

[Huggy Bear]

It seems you don't even know your own atheist talking points.

You can't pull out the "no true scotsman" nonsense here because I'm not claiming "no true scotsman", my argument is "never was a scotsman". Is there a reason to be confused by a vegetarian eating a steak? nope, because he is obviously not a vegetarian.

This is not a logical comparison. You have taken a broad term with a number of competing definitions - "Christian" - and defined it in a way to categorically exclude those who have acted in a certain manner, when that act is not the primary thing upon which that definition is based. Your "Vegetarian" argument is dissimilar because the act of eating meat is excluded by the definition of vegetarianism. You start with the definition, and then see if things fit it. Not the other way around.

What you're saying - One who has murdered is not Christian, because to murder is not Christian - rearranges the definition of Christianity around the act of murder, when this is not a linguistically, definitionally, necessary inference.

This is not like saying "Is there a reason to be confused by a vegetarian eating a steak? No, because obviously he's not a vegetarian."

This is a lot more like saying "Is there a reason to be confused by a vegetarian wearing a fur coat? No, because obviously he's not a vegetarian."
Or "Is there a reason to be confused by an animal rights activist eating a steak? No, because obviously he's not an animal rights activist."

The only way for you to get around this - when there are multiple definitions of the term Christian, some of which preclude murders always and some of which don't - is for you to now prove, or at least convince, why your definition is necessary. I suspect that your answer will be "Christian means 'like Christ,' and Christ didn't murder," or, more broadly, reference to scripture, couched in linguistics. When this is the case, the odds of convincing anyone - given that the disagreements about proper biblical interpretation are more numerous than the disagreements about the proper definition of Christian at all - plummet.

Disclaimer: Listen, I know an attempt to get through to the OP is going to be futile. But this is the NTS! We're talking about my favorite fallacy here.

Let's modify your earlier quote:

I think the point is that if we're trying to argue atheism v. christianity by saying "well, [christian despot] killed 10 million people but [atheist despot] killed 20 million people" then we're missing the point

so you can understand what i'm trying to say.

If we edit the quote like this:

I think the point is that if we're trying to argue omnivores v. herbivores by saying "well, [herbivores] ate 10 pounds of meat but [omnivores] ate 20 pounds of meat" then we're missing the point

then it immediately makes no sense, because herbivores don't eat meat, so therefore it is no longer an herbivore.

Likewise, a Christian does not murder people (in reference to your quote), doing so, proves one is not a Christian.