Which Jesus is that? The late JC or the one I found in Tijuana?

" Freedom is not an abstract philosophical (or legal) concept, but the vital and concrete possibility for every human being to bring to full development all the powers, capacities and talents with which nature has endowed him/her"

Although this quote is taken from a book that deals primarily with political theory it is in some ways similar to that which Christians are refering to when they speak about 'freedom in Christ'.  It is actually quite an interesting take on freedom and this is what people are talking about (among other things) when they say that Jesus is all about freedom.

Matt Shizzle - "Who ever said that either doesn't know what Jesus supposedly said or has some strange definition of freedom."

What is your concept of freedom? I have found in my own life that the idea that 'freedom is the ability to do what we please when we please' is extremely problematic.  This sort of freedom ceases to exist as soon as an individual is placed in any sort of social environment in which they are (whether they like it or not) forced to deal with the reality that life is primarily a relational experience.  We are effected and limited by the presence of other human beings period. 

There are freedoms or rights which the State allows us so long as we are not harming or effecting others in a negative or malicious manner.  Ultimately we are responsible for our choices still and must submit to the consequences of our actions whether they be natural consequences or State legislated consequences.

In the same way the argument could be made that God, if you beleive there is a God, has allowed humanity the ability to make choices. This is what 'freewill' is.  If an intelligent creator is responsible for the creation that intellegence or justice is inevitabley going to be reflected in creation.  Therefore when we make good or bad choices we then might suffer the consequences or reap the benefit  of our actions.

To tie this back into the question of whether Jesus is about freedom or not...well 'beleif' in Christ (whatever that means) or following the example of Christ allows the beleiver to reach their full potential and thus attain ultimate freedom. Freedom in the biblical sense is the ability for an individual to become that which they were designed to be.  To experience life on this planet to it's fullest - to be and become all that they are capable of being.  This is perhap why Paul contrasts being "dead in sin/free in Christ". If to 'sin' is to 'miss the mark' then these things we find in the Bible listed as sin are all things that bind us or keep us from living a life centred on loving and intimate relationships with either God, people or creation as a whole.  To be free in Christ is to be freed from the bondage of sin and it's eternal consequences. Freedom is the ability to be an unpolluted (or as close as it comes) version of yourself.

This idea of freedom is not soley a Christian one. If you ask me it is among the most solid philosophies on the concept that I've come across.

Matt, please be careful not to be so hasty in your judgments.  I'm not knocking you bro - I just know how it goes. One person disagrees with a certain belief system or philosophy and so they knock every thought that comes out of that camp. This is one of the problems with 'religious' communities (as I'm sure you've noticed).  Just don't fall into that same pattern. Anyways I guess to close I would say that this is not irrational - from my understanding Jesus was definately about freedom on so many levels.

Well freedom  is a extremely vague political ,philosophical and if you like religious concept. In my opinion for direct practical purposes its so vague it can mean so much it actually means nothing at all .

One mans freedom is anothers prison, any law or consitution that has the word 'freedom' in is a poor one, great concept for wooly debates bad for deciding what is or isnt acceptable in society

Jesus said and did some pretty crazy things:

See_here.

Anyway, pretty much every law that is anti-freedom in this country that is attempted to be passed (anti-abortion, anti-birth control, discriminatory, censorship, etc. ) is mainly sponsored by Christians.

"Jesus said and did some pretty crazy things:"

haha thanks Matt. I've actually read and done a little bit of study on what Jesus said...hence why I call myself a Christian or follower of Christ:P  If youre interested in finding out what the context of these passages you should definately do a study...I have found people like NT Wright offer great insights. Even if you just read the rest of the story from which these passages where taken you might get a better idea of the context. It would probably be helpful for you as well if you are engaging Christians about Jesus if you better understood Christian theology. My original post that got me linked up with the RRS had to do exactly with this issue.  I emailed them about how SOME NOT ALL athiests just throw out isolated passages without understanding what they mean to Christians and this can weaken their arguments.  I don't knock the athiest belief to be honest, I just think that if a conversation is going to take where the words of Jesus are being used to in some way challenge the Christian beleif...well then it would be important that the Christian beleif is first understood.

 "Anyway, pretty much every law that is anti-freedom in this country that is attempted to be passed (anti-abortion, anti-birth control, discriminatory, censorship, etc. ) is mainly sponsored by Christians."

 I know...and as a Christian I would like to apologize to every non-Christian who has had to adhere to laws that have been based soley on 'Christian morality'. Most of these laws are not a reflection of what Jesus taught - and even if they were from reading the accounts of his life it seems quite clear that Jesus was not interested in people following his teachings because they were forced to by the government. This confusion is most likely the product of Christendom NOT Christ.

Well that was a sweet little response...last time I check life was still complicated and my head has yet to show any signs of combustion...ffffewww

"You must have missed the many threads where atheism was defined.  It is not a philosphy, nor is it a lifestyle or belief.  It is in fact the exct opposite of belief, it is non-belief in Dog or any god for that matter.  We simply do not accept that there is any sky daddy watching over us or affecting our lives in any way, shape or form."

Hey BullDog,

I didn't miss the posts I just am still a little confused as to the logic behind this. Maybe you cold clear it up for me though. Is that like when I say to someone "what are you thinking?" and they respond "nothing".  Isn't thinking about nothing still thinking? By not beleiving in God aren't you either just beleiving there is no God or beleiving that you don't know if God exists? Isn't it still a belief? If beleiving in God then shapes ones lifestyle then wouldn't not believing in God also shape your lifestyle at the very least because you don't adhere to the same moral code or practice certain religious rituals ect? I'm not saying it would look the same for every athiest just as following Christ doesn't look the same for every Christian. Athiesm though it may not be a complete philosophy is still a part of what shapes your understanding of the world and therefore it informs your life philosophy does it not? In the same way the teaching of Christ inform the Christian understanding of the universe and the variety of philosophies that make that up.

PS - My sky daddy would beat up your sky daddy in a fight:P Atheism spelled backwards is Ms. Ietha! Sorry I'm just having fun.

Peace and Love

Cool Matt Churhman. I dig ya man. To be a Jesus fan does not mean one is xain. The bible is so vague that interpretation of them words is no reason for claiming a prejudice label for oneself. We are simply one earth, one human race.

   Jesus is highly adored in all the world. To say Jesus is an idiot, who wrote nothing, is more to say, the biographers of idol worship invention, as is traditional religion are idiots, and YEAH. I and you and all are the Christ ! We are what we are , as, "I am what I am" .... Need I even mention all is god !   Therefore I am simply atheist, as is the essence of many other labels, such as pantheists, buddhists, taoists etc. Even the Muslims have one, which I can't remember.    Dig ?

Jesus is slavery.

Naw, Jesus just thought slavery was cool is all. Otherwise..... why not do away with it and not leave it up to that putz Paul. Oh wait he never said anything about doing away with that horrible institution either. Ok, so jesus is just for slavery.

Hey Bullgod,

Thanks for responding. I was just reading your reply and there where a couple of areas where I'm still not totally clear.

"Well, let's see if I can clear it up for you.  As to your example, I sometimes "veg" when I'm tired or just want to relax.  When I do I just stare, my eyes usually lose focus and I don't have a thought running through my consious mind."

I guess this is kind of a personal thing so I can't really go against what you are saying from personal experience.  I've not expereinced this state of "veg". I do at times veg/relax and think about very little consciously but my mind is constantly going and as random as it is I am still always thinking about something. Usually if I am watching TV there are a variety of different thoughts running through my mind even if they are just processing and interpretting what I am seeing on the television...then I usually go off on some tangent that is in some way, regardless of how vaguely, related to whatI have been watching.

"I don't "believe" there is no Dog, I simply do not accept the existence of Dog"

This is what I mean. This seems to be a word game and that's where my confusion comes from. 

definitions - accept - say yes; approve; BELIEVE

So really all I have to do is use my thesaurus and your sentence would read "I don't believe there is no Dog, I simply do not beleive the existence of Dog." One of the words in the dictionary that is used to define the word accept is in fact the word 'belief'. In the context of what you are saying I beleive they are interchangable.

I said - "If beleiving in God then shapes ones lifestyle then wouldn't not believing in God also shape your lifestyle at the very least because you don't adhere to the same moral code or practice certain religious rituals ect? I'm not saying it would look the same for every athiest just as following Christ doesn't look the same for every Christian. Athiesm though it may not be a complete philosophy is still a part of what shapes your understanding of the world and therefore it informs your life philosophy does it not? In the same way the teaching of Christ inform the Christian understanding of the universe and the variety of philosophies that make that up."

You said - "Yes, our morals, ethics and perceptions of the world around us do shape the way we behave, our lifestyle if you will.  However, our morals, ethics and perceptions of the world are not based on the writings and fantasies of a bunch of cave dwellers in the Middle East some 1900 years ago. Since we all percieve the world a little differently from each other, mostly based on our experiences and understanding of things, our lifestyles are different in many ways. Except for theists, that has nothing to do with dieties living in the sky, or in the ground or rocks, trees or anywhere else."

No, as an athiest they are not based on the "writing of cave dwellers..." they are based at least in part by the belief that the words of these individuals are not in some way the inspired word of God. This may not be the case if you were never exposed to the beliefs of these' cavedwellers' as you call them but you have and therefore you are forced to wither beleive what they are saying or not beleive as you have chosen to do.

"To reiterate, Atheism (a poor term at best) is not a philosophy, it is not even the beginning of a philosphy."

definitions - philosophy - an explaination or theory of the universe. 

The beleif that there is no God is one theory of the universe. It is a universe without a God. Jus tlike my belief in God effects the way I interpret the universe, Your not beleiving in God effects the way you understand the universe???

"Philosophy is a systematic approach relying on reasoned argument to address life, truth, justice and a whole host of other tangible and intangible realities of our world."

Wouldn't Atheism be part of a "reasoned approach to address "a whole host of tangible and intangible realities of our world"?

PS- Just because your sky daddy didn't accept the reality of my sky daddy it doesn't mean that my sky daddy's reality isn't reality Therefore your sky daddy would be forced to accept (or not accept) the reality of my sky daddy's foot in his ass:P Either way my sky daddy's foot would still be all up in his ass:O

definitions - Atheism - the beleif that there is no God.

"First of all, if you want a definition go to the dictionary, not the thesaurus.  One has the definition of words the other has words with the same or similar meaning depending on the context in which they are used."

All of my definitions came out of my dictionary (Collins Gage) not a thesaurus. 

"As I said before, the English language, or any language for that matter, is imprecise.  I use the term "accept" as a transitive verb with the definition (3b) broadly defined." 

I totally agree. Language is merely symbols. I have found that for the most part many of the misunderstandings we have deal with this issue.  That's why I was trying to clear up how we're defining terms. I'm still at a bit of a loss when it comes to grasping your use of the word. I mean I see the definition you are using but I can not see how one could be presented with a few different wordviews and beleive one without not believing the others if the ideas are in opposition or contradictory to one another. This could just mean that you are open to the idea that god may exist, therefore you do not not believe you just don't accept it enough to live your life by it...but judging from some of your other comments I can't assume this is the case ie. "your god is not real".

"Maybe it's my eyesight, I just don't see anywhere in the definition anything about the universe."

Probably not your eyesight - we may just have different dictionary definitions.

"Atheism...might be part of someone's philosophy about something."

Exactly. I think I said this almost word for word in a earlier post.

"As to morals; suffice to say that morals were around long before jeebus and christianity.  All your cave dwellers did was copy from a far older and, likely wiser, culture and then claim it was thier idea. Had you finished reading the paragraph from which you took my sentence out of context, you would have seen that. Your god is not real, therefore there is no connection between morals and the idea of a sky daddy."

There must be some confusion here. I don't remember saying anything about the origin of morality? I was just saying that since you do not believe in a sky daddy you do not accept or believe some of the moral teachings of these 'cave dwellers' as authoritative. Since you have been exposed to these writings you have had to choose whether or not to beleive them as authoritative and this is a part of what makes up your concept of morality (even if you have only given it a little thought). Just a quick question...would you refer to Plato, Socrates or many other ancient writers as' cave dwellers' or is this just an attempt to minimize the contributions of biblical authors through using negative language to describe them?

"If you're going to post definitions post the entire definition not just the parts that tend to back only your argument, and don't make them up anymore.  If your argument can't stand up to the full definition, don't use the definition at all."

I used those definitions specifically because they supported what I was saying. You had called me out on my use of words ie) that Atheism is not 'not beleiving in God'. I was just demonstrating that your argument was a word game because according to my use of the word I was justified in my statement. I mean we may disagree on terms but that is neither here nor there. It was the use of the word 'accept' as opposed to 'believe' that had me confused because I see little distinction between the two words in the context of this conversation. Fair play though. I'm stilll kind of fuzzy on this as I mentioned earlier.

I'm glad I got a laugh out of you If you want...I'm still kind of unclear on how you can  'not accept the existence of God' without 'not beleivng in God'. If you think you could clarify this further it would be helpful for me. Just maybe PM me because we've gotten so far off the topic of the thread and I don't want people to have to read our ramblings about language.

Peace

As a kid I did not accept the teachings of the bible because much of it went contrary to my sense of morals (learned from my parents, neighbors, teachers, etc) and was thoroughly contradictive.  Thou shalt not murder, commit adultery, steal and bear false witness.  These are the only commands that can be found in the law.  They make sense from a thoroughly secular perspective.  The rest of the commandments were obviously written by mortals without divine guidance, for cultural or other reasons. There is no authority to their "teachings" except what any individual might give them for their own personal needs. The writers produced one of the most poorly written books ever and their morals are not something I would choose to follow.  Thou shalt not murder unless god tells you to and, of course, god is exempt from that rule.  No mention of rape being immoral, oh, right. Rape was rampant back then as was slavery and genocide.  Can't comdemn others for doing what your people do, now can you?

My morals were not based on their "teachings", they were based on common sense and a swift smack on the bottom when I violated one of them (or any of the rules set down by my parents). My morals were developing prior to starting Sunday school and my parents, while theists, didn't read the bibble to me.  I had no knowledge of the supernatural until I started watching movies like the "Werewolf" and "Dracula" on tv and that included Abes god.  The writers had no influence on me one way or another, even after I started going to Sunday school because I immediately had questions about everything not mentioned.

To not believe does not require belief in that which is not believed.  I don't believe (keeping it simple here) in little green men from Mars and I never believed that there are, were or will be little green men from Mars.  The only "proof" for your god is in a 2000 yr old book that has been misinterpreted countless times since it's writing and your faith.  That is not adequate for me to accept your proposition that there is a spirit in the sky interested in us and all the other crap.  I have never given any weight (accepted) the argument, or "evidence", in support of the existence of any god.

You really need to read all of a thread and not stop at what seem arguable or what seems to bolster your argument and take it out of context. These questions could have easily explained themselve by reading my thread thoroughly. And the fact that you can't understand what I mean doesn't mean my meaning isn't expressed there. Anyway, this thread is becoming a little tedious and we need to end it.

My apologies, MattSchizzle, didn't think it would go this far. Matt Churchmann, it's been fun.

And the definition of  g-o-d  IS  ?!? 

Hummm, maybe a big contest prize for the best one! Of course mine is the best, but I know I will lose the contest.  Shit, at least I probably won't get murdered over it, but it still happens this day ..... on this planet "ouch". Mercy, mercy ....

Of course not but what does that have to do with Jesus and the topic of the thread which is freedom? Let's show Shizzle some respect and stay on topic...I'm already guilty of wasting too much space on here but you can ask me in a Private Message.

I'm sure you're logic will be something like..'well if you don't believe in Zues how can you believe in Jesus?'. If this is where you're going with this I would challenge you to message me with your position that there is equal historical evidence to support the existence of Zues (perhaps multiple alleged eyewitness reports would be a good starting point).

AHH PM unless it has something to do with  freedom and Jesus!

"Does this mean that your non-belief in Zeus makes up part of your morality? Or Dagon? Or Krishna?"

Maybe only if I define myself by my disbelief (ie) Athiesm). Also, for me I haven't been exposed to the moral teachings of Zeus or Dagon...so this wouldn't apply. This is interesting though...did Zeus have moral teachings?

This also may not apply for everyone and it was ignorant of me to assume it would. In my case at least I've grown up in a society (NA) that's sense of morality seems to be at least loosely based on Judaeo-Christian morality. As such, at least in the early years of my life much of what I concieved of as moral or immoral without even thinking had to do with the cultural influences of Christianity or some form of it. My later rejection of these morals came at least in part because I didn't beleive in the god that was allegedly responsible for them. The cultural impact of Zues was not quite as invasive during those formative years although he is becoming more and more relevant now that I have joined an Atheist forum:P

"Are you telling me that your morality is malleable according to the deities you reject? I very much doubt that this is the truth. The non-existence of those deities has no more impact on your morality than the non-existence of Yahweh has on mine."-

Actually you have a good point here.  I think perhaps it would have been more appropriate for me to say that "the beleif that any given diety is non-existent informs my worldview and my worldview informs my sense of morality". Though I do see your point.  Your morality may not be based fully on your rejection of the existence of God, but your rejection of those things that are deemed moral or immoral by that God that go contrary to your own personal concept of morality is directly tied to your disbelief in God:S

Great point. Next time maybe just PM me.

Peace and Love- 

Atheist Jesus - freedom / Christian Jesus - slavery.

It's your choice. Ya can't mess with my Jesus, as we are ONE!   

  What would Jesus do today ? Maybe be in a band ?!!!

The Who - I'm Free  ( be jesus, follow his lead, suggestion ! )

New:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8zeL6uSEl8&feature=related

Old:     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdCXweJHAkg&feature=related

Cream - I Feel Free

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVcIer_4OnA

Cleaner:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb_Uu0eTNWk&feature=related

Cream - I'm So Glad   [ and so I get sad too ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yi7AJvzRUA

I'm sure they've done studies on this. I don't know the answer to your question though. I recall as a child feeling that some things were right and others wrong. I remember feeling bad for the kid on the playground who was getting bullied and thinking it was wrong regardless of punishment or reward. I don't know though, that's just me.

As far as your comment about young offenders...maybe this is the case. I thought it had to do with our ability to reason as youth and the fact that we make poor choices so the goal is not to condemn someone whose person is not yet fully formed. I mean that a young person may still know that what they are doing is wrong but not be emotionally 'mature' enough to control themselves from acting irresponsibly. Not sure about that one either but I remember as a child getting angry and hitting a person...I knew hitting people was wrong but I was simply unable to control my emotions or put things into perspective as to the severuty of the consequences of my actions.

Just thought I would kind of turn the tables for fun. What is freedom for an Atheist?...not that you all share the same concept of freedom but since I have claimed that Jesus IS about freedom  I wonder what you all conceive freedom to be (if there is such a thing at all beyond legal rights ect.).

Here's my thought.

If you are Atheist you are also a biological determinist/social-constructionist correct? There is no 'I', 'Me' or soul of any kind (I could be wrong which is why this is a question).  So there is no freedom in Atheism? The mind is simply an illusion of the brain, therefore you are the product of biology mixed together with your environment/experience (and your predetermined biological responses to these factors). The implication is that your entire life is simply the playing out of forces completely beyond your control. I often hear people criticize Theism, saying that Theists have a Master and therefore they are not free, however based on my understanding as articulated here, if atheists are correct in their assumptions about the universe and humanity, you too have a Master or a force that guides your every action and thought. Now, at the same time this isn't a challenege to your beleif or lack of beleif...because the truth of a matter is not determined by how favourable it sounds...even still it would be interesting to hear some of your thoughts on this.

Peace and Love

Assuming we are all limited by our biological/genetic, determinism/tendencies, it is not relevant then, when speaking of the difference in freedom levels between a theist and non theists, to mention how much more or less a theist is affected by these biological factors. Theists do not overcome the the biological facts when they deny they are limited by them. The only difference is that the theist adds limitations on top their already limited lives and force themselves into a constant state of cognitive dissonance over the natural tendencies and impulses they do have.

The point is that we know enough about human psychology, and have the scientific observation neccesary, to form a solid case for some form of determinism. Since we as humans all start with a relatively equally limited amount of freedom, via our psychological and genetic tendencies, why add another set of meaningless rules and guilt trips that have no relevance to our happiness nor our functionality?

"Assuming we are all limited by our biological/genetic, determinism/tendencies, it is not relevant then, when speaking of the difference in freedom levels between a theist and non theists, to mention how much more or less a theist is affected by these biological factors."

Well assuming that we are COMPLETELY limited by our biology then...yes you are correct that there is little difference and as Archeoptryx said, in practice, in life, there would be little difference between the two. I understand what you're saying better now.

Of course coming from that position it would be pointless to add rules...especially if they are meaningless rules as you've said. But I don't know many Theists (or more specifically Christians) who adhere to entirely 'meaningless' rules or guilt trips... actually I can't think of any of the guilt trips you're referring to personally. Meh..that's not entirely true...I think that some people do expereince these things but I don't think it is what is taught in the Christian holy book. Even if this is the case (COMPLETE biological determinism) most of the guidelines or ethics that religious folk adhere to have some physcological or social value. On the other hand assuming that is not the case, that we have a soul or an essence that is distinctly 'us' and that 'I' was created by an intellegent being, if that being was to provide certain guidelines as to how best care for that 'self' or 'soul' these guidelines (or rules) may be infintely valuable.

I mean for me...as far as cognative dissonance...I am fully aware of my desires ect. Whether they are entirely biological is up for grabs, though it's likely that some are. The difference is I beleive that by not acting on these desires or by some sort of spiritual intervention as is taught in Christianity, I might experience life more abundantly by following the 'righteous path' (to use religious language) that the Creator of the universe has directed me toward. I also beleive that by partnering in relationship with God I am more likely to overcome some of the 'vices' or 'sins'  that keep me from living the abundant life. At the core I do beleive that there is a 'me' or an 'I' or soul. I can't even imagine this not being the case.

I mean not to get into a theological discussion but Paul does talk about overcoming the 'flesh'.  It's not like we deny their existence.

I didn't really get what your take on this is though...so you DO beleive that you are simply the product of your biological make-up combined with your environment?

If by "That' you were referring to me...and by cute you were referring to cute...then thank you...yes I am cute...thanks for noticing:P

Peace and Love

Depends on how one defines the self.

For me the "self" is the combination of one's personality traits. Those are learned traits so when one stops learning at death, those go away also.

Adding the baggage of an undefinable "soul" is unnecessary. In fact, it makes me wonder if the "soul" was a concept created for religious extortion.

Well, as has been said, I don't accept that there is a soul because there is no reason for me to suppose that there is such a thing. And when I say "soul" I'm referring to the idea that there is a supernatural element to the self, or a part of the self that survives brain death. Granted, I haven't proved that no part of my consciousness will survive brain death, but I find no reason to suppose that it will. All indications seem to point toward non-survival, and nothing seems to point toward survival. (Other than "god says you'll survive", etc, but that's not very persuasive to me.)

But the question of the soul, I think, is an  unhelpful one if we're trying to answer whether or not there is a god. I typically don't bother with this question, other than to state that I am highly skeptical. I don't believe there is a soul, but it's not a question that is particularly interesting. Even if the existence of a soul is determined to be true, it wouldn't be very informative beyond informing us that there is some kind of soul. Beyond that, it wouldn't say anything. So I tend to not see the point of wrestling with this one too much.

I don't think there would be a PERCEIVABLE difference,  no. Emphasis on perceivable.

Right, it doesn't speak to the truth/falsity of either. This only tells me how you feel about the difference. It tells me how each would make you see yourself in relation to the universe if you knew one or the other was true. But as for how you would experience life on a day-to-day functional level, it wouldn't be any different at all. In either universe, life would be just the same as it is now. You and I already see the universe differently, so both views are already here, and probably would be in either universe. Nothing changes. *shrug*

Nooo, no person who accepts determinsim is advocating that sort of thing. I mean, that's on the same level as saying, "Well, if the universe is deterministic, then I don't have any control over anything, do I? Then I guess I'm powerless and I'll just waste my life away playing video games, because what's the point?"

I think we both see the fallacy.

Just because the universe is deterministic doesn't mean we should stop behaving as though we have free will. The universe is the same whether we accept or reject determinism, and regardless of whether or not we agree with it, we should behave the way we always have. Determinism does not mean that everyone becomes a mindless automoton. ; )

"I said that the personality traits that make up you are things that are taught to you by other people (parents, friends, mentors). "

That's exactly what I meant by social constructionist. It would be a combination of biological responses to environment and experience. But if you are no more than biology (which adheres to certain laws and systems) then your responses to these situations or "things you're taught be people" would be predetermined by your biological make-up.

I get what you're saying now about exortion...and I agree that this idea has been abused by religious institutions in order to guilt people into behaving in a certain way...like if a religious leader says "true Christians support the President ect.". But I mean this is irrelevant really because an atheist could just as easily abuse the idea that there is no sould and attempt to convince someone to behave in a certain manner that may not truely be in their best interests...of course any idea can be exploited by the perverse and power hungry.

As long as what you mean is that you understand why I think the answer to the soul question wouldn't be very informative, then okay. I would only take offense if you were suggesting that I was "afraid of the truth" or "avoiding the hard questions like a typical atheist" or something snarky along those lines. But it sounds like that's not what you mean, so no problems here I don't think.