In some cultures or religions there is a great emphasis placed on soul as the God-given connection, the inner creature that returns to Heaven after the body is destroyed. A possible question to arise is the possible lack of soul for someone who does not believe in God.
Someone who is atheist is not soulless. Soul and religion (and Love) are not necessarily connected; but it is true that knowing of God can enlighten one to Love and an understanding of our soul.
If a non-religious philosophy were to attempt to comprehend Love, it is highly likely that they would find a way around the ‘dilemma’ that does not involve God or connections with the soul. Love may be at the heart of Creation, but this, in no way, negates that Creation itself (that is, the humans within it) does not know of Love. Indeed, we often see that animals interact with their surroundings to prosper – this is (to the extent of our perspective knowledge) without the idea of Love.
Too, an atheist is still a person with emotional intelligence. They are able to interact with their surroundings just as easily as a theist. Indeed, the atheist might argue that they are more ‘in touch’ with animals since there are fewer boundaries between the evolved human and the animals in Creation.
Contrarily, would a non-religious society not be able to comprehend their world because of their ‘lack of love’? I suggest that this question is moot in itself. As I have said before, God is not needed (necessarily) for a kind of love to exist, so the logic of moving from religion together with love to non-religion with no love is refuted. Let us say, as a starting point, that God created the world with Love. Thus, religions understand Creation. On the other hand, the non-religious philosophy would certainly look at Creation with a different eye, but this does not mean that they would not be able to comprehend it. One could even go so far as to argue that the atheist comprehends the world just as much as the theist, but by applying an entirely different philosophy.
Take Plato and Aristotle, for instance: the former was concerned that our entire world is simply a pale imitation of the Realm of Forms; the latter was a materialist, convinced that our entire world never stops changing its physical forms. However different these two theories were, both men had a comprehensive idea of their world and of the typical emotions of humans. Neither was more flawed than the other in their reading of the senses.
Thus, regardless of love, the animal world can be understood and cared for.
If God exists and the non-believer is wrong, they still possess their soul even if they have little knowledge of its use themselves. If the believer is wrong and God does not exist, it is likely that we have evolved ‘souls’ out of our emotional intelligence as a species of the world, ways of looking at the world through a directly human view, which enables us to think and contemplate. Either view is a perfectly reasonable explanation of humanity.