Arguments against Soul

[Haipule]

What do you guys here think, what is the best argument against the existence of the soul (and therefore ghosts and afterlives)?
I used to think that the "Damage of the middle of the brain leads to two distinct personalities governing halves of the body." was an argument that would convince anybody, but, evidently, it won't. See here:
How do people who believe in souls explain away the fact that epileptic patients who have the middle of their brain severed appear to have two distinct personalities governing halves of their bodies?
In short, people respond with "Where is some reliable source for that claim?", and, to be honest, I am not sure what would be a reliable source for this. My psychology textbook saying that isn't really good evidence that's true, is it? I mean, my Croatian history textbook tells me most scientists agree Global Flood really happened.
Perhaps the best response to that is "And where is some reliable source of the claims about Maria's Shoe, and other things that supposedly prove the existence of soul?", what do you think?

Thinking is an abstract largely dependent on PHD's who went to school to learn how to say, "Polly want a cracker" just like their professors. Apparently you didn't believe them. That's good. Their all full of shit and their own crap! I'm not defending Christianity because Christianity is indefensible--DUMB AS A POST!

Please tell me how in the hell they got "soul" out of psuchE? psuchE, in the bible, means: instinctive natural born intellect--translated as "soul". What the fuck is a soul? psuchO is the verb. Does "soul" have a verb form? PLEASE!!!

Ask a stupid question...