Bold move to mention 'god' on HN. I think the analogy is striking (therefore at least rhetorically useful) in the sense that it challenges the idea of ourselves merely ending where our bodies do.

Socialisation and attendant technologies suggest otherwise: there's plenty of 'me' which is opaque to me, of me that precedes me, of me that derived from other minds. 'I' may even reside briefly in other minds, such as (trivially) in the form of this comment.

The more we look at how individuals are structured from somatic to social levels, the less convincing the notion of individuality becomes.

Probably also a dumb move, since it was incidental to my point, and probably skips a crucial argument step. Oh well.

I definitely agree with your last sentence. And this can be as simple as the idea, often observed, that someone 'lives on' in the minds of their loved ones after death. For me that is entirely non supernatural or mystical. As you say (and nicely phrased) our identity is a function of everything from the somatic to the social level.