Arguments against Soul

[Rhondazvous]

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?

Atheism has nothing to do with belief or non belief in the soal. Atheism is not believing in a go. You can not believe in god but still believe in the soul. Or you can be like the pre apocalyptic Jews and believe in god but not the afterlife.

Me, personally, I d on't believe in the Judeo-Christian god or in any named god. Nothing else applies to me. As fa r as the soul and afterlife, that's just dark matter and dark energy. An effect whose cause isn't detectable by physical instruments.
the same cannot be said of god because what is written is full of too much crap.