Life after death?

[Whateverist]

"Soul" is already taken, by the church. Besides, there are other, better names. "Personality" is a good one. "Character" is another. Using one that's religiously charged in general terms is kind of counter productive.

Of course, throwing around the word "soul" with atheists is never a good idea for an actual discussion.
But neither religious nor anti-religious sentiment changes the word's definiton.

Then we're going to quibble over meanings? English is more complex than that. The following is from the first definition I opened upon googling the word. I'm sure a better one would offer still more meanings.

soul

noun
1.
the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2.
the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
3.
the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
4.
the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
5.
a human being; person.

The church (none of them) have any proprietary rights over the word. Your use (1 & 2) is more common by this ranking but what is most common is not always best. I would choose 4 when I use the word, but am no more right or wrong than you. If you wish to specify the use of the word as the Roman Catholic church would use it, then do so. I would have then nothing to offer on the subject.

---

When you die you won't return to the land of the living, at least on this planet.

I never said that, and Christianity never said that (applying to the average person, anyway). The essence of dying is that you LEAVE the land of the living and don't come back.
As for where you go to, I don't know.
As for if there IS a you to go anywhere, I'm arguing there is. If you'd like to contribute something to that argument, go ahead.

[My bolding.]

"Arguing" might be a slight exaggeration so far. Asserting seems to cover it. From everything you've said so far I half expect you to reasonably stop there and simply admit it is what you believe. I have no more evidence that you're wrong than you have evidence your belief is true. No shame in that. We all have any number of beliefs which we accept without evidence, why shouldn't you? Of course, if you really want to argue that this is a reasonable position which we should all accept .. best of luck to you.