Arguments against Soul

[Jehanne]

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?

The existence of an immaterial soul would violate the Conservation Laws, namely, Energy, Momentum and Angular Momentum, for which, no exceptions whatsoever, to date, have been found.  Given modern technology, infrared, magnetic and electric field detectors, the existence of an immaterial soul could be quickly, and definitively, established.

As for veridical experiences for near-death experiences, such have been looked for, under controlled conditions, without success; as such, those accounts fall into the same category as Travis Walton's abduction by aliens in California.