Not two souls but many souls are bound on the spirit, and they commune when in spirit. We are infinite beings and are not defined or definable by a single bond.
First off, atheism isn’t nihilism. Atheists don’t deny beliefs as a whole. Atheism is an opposition to ideas that people attribute to life, concepts of Gods and the supernatural. They have many views on the subject so it isn’t a unified belief, and atheism could be considered more a state of mind than a formalized belief. Generally, it is very invested in the idea that anything not obviously present to the sense is not real and a potentially harmful distraction from “real life”.
Though it isn’t all literal denial of any substance to the concepts of Gods or the supernatural, agnosticism could be argued to be a form of atheism without making an assertion that can’t be confirmed, like there is no God. The concept that there is no God, if it’s meant as a literal statement of physical reality, is inherently illogical.
Do atheists have a soul? The majority of atheists struggle to explain the arising or mechanisms of the mind, and most do not acknowledge the existence of souls.
Atheism is about the logic of reality? If you can’t see it then it isn’t there? Yes, atheism is about that. It makes some sound arguments to support its views in the theoretical branch of the belief.
Could you elaborate on the lack of logic in ‘no god’? It would be like saying there are no flying pink elephants. The statement is an irrelevancy, which brings up practical atheism. In practical atheism (which is more common than people profess), activities and decisions are undertaken excluding the consideration of God and the existence of the supernatural. Most atheism schools heavily emphasize the primacy and moral necessity of the exercise of human reason. They attribute many atrocities and even moral vices to using religion and belief in Gods as a form of “apologism”. That if you behave immorally all you have to do is atone to a God and your moral virtue is restored.
Then there are theoretical atheists, who engage the branch of philosophy known as theology in a critical way. Asserting that if Gods exist then their action would be evident, or that there are inconsistencies with the legitimacy of a God that merits worship and the events that happen in life. Early atheistic schools didn’t so much deny the existence of God as they did question divine place, concepts of worship, or divine authority. It only really became a rejection of any non physical reality, or the ability to know a non physical reality, in the rise of what’s been called the age of reason.
They would say if God existed why are there people living homeless and dying of cancer, etc? They do make that argument, and go farther in criticising religion as a dodge from practical action.
You say atheism has become more distant from agnosticism? Yes, there are arguments that are inherently atheistic, but do not actually base their assumptions on the negative identity of any divinity. It’s referred to as metaphysical atheism. The basic argument being that all that exists, exists in a single reality. Therefore the privileged, and therefore divine position of a God like entity, is inherently impossible.
This is closer to Gnosis in a way? In a way, and there is a school of thought known as Deism, which is by definition atheistic, but does not exclude spirituality or a principle that could be considered divine. It refutes the existence of a separate entity that could be called a God, and goes forward with the notion that the divinity and intelligence that shaped reality is inherent in reality itself, and there is no agenda or investment of “Gods will” beyond the worlds already natural function.
Similar to Buddhist thought? Buddhism is often identified as a spiritual yet also atheistic belief.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.