My mind-body dualism challenge to Roderick Chisholm

The Rational Christian Discernment blog quoted words from Roderick Chisholm to make "A Philosophical Argument For The Immateriality Of The Soul", see here.  

I responded, but because it won't be visible until after approval, which might mean "never",  and because many Christians have tried to avoid me by simply deleting my challenges from their blogs, I cross-post my reply here (couple of typos corrected):

Persons do not persist through time as fully as you say.  Millions of adults will tell you that they are no longer the same as the stupid juvenile delinquent they used to be.  Apparently, the brain's aging is a reasonable explanation for why most adults do not act like rambunctious teenagers.  And we all acknowledge that a certain alcoholic "becomes another person" when they drink.  The idea that people retain their attributes more strongly than inanimate objects is foolish.  Archaeology shows us exactly what the pottery from thousands of years ago looked like, yet this obviously outlives any "person". 

Persons persist through time sufficiently to morally justify imposition of criminal law, of course, but from a technical standpoint, people are in a constant state of change no less than your table that changes when pieces are chipped off of it. They only differ from one another in how often the changes take place.  If you think chipping changes the table, why don't you think brain injuries that degrade personality have changed the person? 

When this is combined with the obvious proofs that the mind is nothing but the physical brain function, and combined with the absurdity of the theory that our minds come into our brains from another dimension, the skeptic is perfectly reasonable, even if not infallible, to deny mind-body dualism.  But as the vast majority of Christians will agree, one need only be reasonable, they need not be infallible, to be morally and intellectually justified to believe the way they do.  The standard cannot be higher for the skeptic. 

This is to say nothing of the fact that some Christians who hold to the "essentials", such as 7th day Adventists, and therefore cannot be automatically wiped off the page as deluded heretics, see no biblical basis to assert that there is an immaterial part of a human being that continues in self-aware consciousness after physical death. 

You run a severe risk of wasting your time in the sin of word-wrangling over a doctrine that could very well not even be biblical.  There's a huge spiritual risk involved in using your lust to argue to fill in the gaps left by a Jesus who never told you to refute the arguments of skeptics.  It very well might be that Jesus expected of his followers a type of devotion and faith that is far more simpleminded than the ceaseless word-wrangling "answer everything" sin that dominates modern-day Christianity and inerrancy-scholarship.  Human tradition is all you have to justify viewing anything in the NT after the 4 gospels as "inspired by God", and by putting so much stock in the full 27-book NT canon, you are elevating the importance of that human tradition to the same level as the words of Christ himself.  I suspect there's a little bit of Roman Catholicism in all Protestant Christians.

Obviously this is just the tip of the ice-box.  To avoid flaming a blog is to shorten the length of response, which means intentionally refusing in a single post to cover every possible point of bickering.

The atheist justification for denying mind-body dualism answers all the "arguments" advanced by the Christians who cannot even agree on whether the bible teaches any such thing (i.e., 7th Day adventists affirm the Trinity, bodily resurrection of Jesus and other "essentials", yet affirm soul-sleep and deny that a person continues in conscious self-awareness after physical death.).

I will be happy to respond to any rejoinders any "Christian" might wish to post.  I simply ask that you keep it to one point at at time, and do not divide your reply into two separate posts to defeat Blogger's word-limit.  Arguing one little point at a time has far more probability of helping us pin-point why we disagree on presuppositions, than if you simply post a rough draft of a master's thesis and then "expect" full rebuttal.  That is the procedure of a stupid clown, not a person concerned to get down to actual truth.