This sounds like a semantic issue with the word "soul".
While the original poster is trying to reclaim the word from superstitious use by re-defining it (in terms of the body), your approach is to keep the superstitious definition of it and reject the concept.
This reminds me of the difference between pantheism and Atheism
. While pantheists (in the naturalistic sense) wish to reclaim the word 'god' by re-definining it as the natural universe itself (something which clearly exists, at least in some sense), atheists retain the supernaturalist definition of 'god' and in turn reject the concept.
In both cases, much the same thing overall is implied, the only difference is the semantic one as to whether a particular term should be given its commonly-defined meaning, or whether it is valid to re-define its definition.
Personally, I would avoid the use of terms like "soul" and "god" (or "Satan") when they can become confusing, such as in rigorous intellectual debate.
Such terms can still possibly be useful in other contexts as a form of poetic metaphor, however, provided they are used with a disclaimer as to their meaning in order to avoid confusion (and semantic purists may still object to such non-conventional usage of language, of course).