I'm describing natural phenomena that have been mistakenly described as the soul.
Yeah, and that, in its entirety, is exactly all I said that you had a burden to prove, since you are making that claim. All the other stuff you've brought up, such as accusing me of appealing to tradition, evidently you've done so because you've utterly missed my point there. What I said was, to assert that claim which I've quoted, as a thesis, there is actually a lot to check, and doing so would occupy a diligent researcher for a lifetime. I'm certainly skeptical that your notion of soul
encompasses all of what the ancients meant when they said soul,
immortal and incorporeal aside.
No, you're still the one utterly missing the point. And please, do show me where I've made an Appeal to Antiquity or Appeal to Popularity. I'm afraid it is impossible, as I have not, where I have pointed out explicitly and obviously that your claim is rooted in the Appeal to Antiquity (and it continues to be even with this latest post). You still don't get that the outrageous claim is not that there is no soul, but that there is. I'm sorry, but this is fairly basic stuff -- I must be explaining it poorly. Maybe this will explain it better than I can:
ETA: The debate discussed in the video is primarily about god, but it is applicable to debating souls.