Well, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve completely missed a point, chris. But I do try to read and respect all definitions of a word in any major dictionary. To describe Chambers as “wrong again” is, with due respect, something of an overreach, especially when the dictionaries I have access to all seem to agree that a secondary, more recent definition of the solution to 21a is one who is without religion (not to mention another definition as one who doesn’t adhere to the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths, ie doesn’t believe in “God”, capped up, the big guy at the heart of said religions). The definition you are insisting upon is undoubtedly the original and purest, but language is evolving all the time, English particularly so. Rather than complain about it, I always think it’s incumbent on the rest of us to try to keep up