It's very simple gae. We have a claim, not a working definition. The claim is that consciousness somehow continues after the death of the brain. A totally illogical and irrational claim.
We do not have a definition of how that phenomenon works. Sure, people throw around very vague words like "essence" and "energy" and "form," along with other non-specific nonsense. But there is no real definition of what a soul is supposed to be. Just vague attempts at trying to explain something that no one really understands. And that's my point, if no one really even understands it and we cannot even really explain it, there is no argument for soul. So there's no need to argue against it.
We do not have a definition of how that phenomenon works. Sure, people throw around very vague words like "essence" and "energy" and "form," along with other non-specific nonsense. But there is no real definition of what a soul is supposed to be. Just vague attempts at trying to explain something that no one really understands. And that's my point, if no one really even understands it and we cannot even really explain it, there is no argument for soul. So there's no need to argue against it.
If you're frightened of dying, and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the Earth.