Arguments against Soul

[mordant]

If it's supernatural, well, that's a useless and illogical concept

There is a good and useful definition of "supernatural," which I think is where the concept comes from.

In this view, everything has a nature -- a way that it is. 

It is in the nature of a cat to do cat things -- run around, sit on my keyboard, nap in the sun, etc. It is not in the nature of a cat to sing opera. 

If my cat suddenly started singing opera, this would be over and above its nature -- therefore, supernatural. 

Anyway, that's the old fashioned definition. 

So to decide if a soul is supernatural or not, we'd have to know what the nature of that thing is. And again, going back to the ancient people who defined what they mean by the word soul, the soul is the form of that body, is a natural thing, exists only in combination with a body, etc. 

If we say that it is in the nature of God to do certain things, then God is not supernatural either. If the nature of God is to be something wholly other than a very powerful sentient being, then it's natural.

Super = above. Supernatural is above or outside nature. Nature in the sense of "the natural world", not in the sense of "a thing's nature". Besides, it's a disordered concept even that way, because if a cat sings opera, it's not a cat and we shouldn't be discussing it in those terms. It's an opera singer with a cat's body, and there's a reason we don't expect to ever see such a thing. It would violate our systems of categorization.

I don't know what "old fashioned" concept you're referring to here. The only definition I can find for "supernatural" is more or less "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature". Whatever it meant to the ancients, it's not what it means to us now, and so it's not the framing of the discussion here.