Most branches of Buddhism reject the concept of the soul because you are always changing, and the definition of the soul is the part of you that never changes. If no part of you is ever "unchanging", how can there be a soul?
I like this point of view, especially because it is consistent with the scientific attitude that anything that is undetectable is not worth considering until it can be detected in some way.
The biggest problem is, there is no clear definition on what is the soul, any more than there is a clear definition on what is God. So my opinion is (of course) the agnostic one: I don't know if it exists, and I will never know, and I'm fine with that.
I like to say, "Come back when you have a clear definition of what the soul is, it might be worth talking about it then."
__________________
---
(By the way, it's all in your head.) |