Also it cannot make any claim that the soul does not exist — that can be corroborated by the scientific method. Nor can you demonstrate that it is a mere "religious invention." What actual evidence do you have for this?
I am very well aware that the lower animals have a form of self-awareness. I've been fascinated by some of the studies I've been reading involving the "remembering" and "learning capabilities" of the amoeba, and other unicellular life forms.
But to argue that all living beings possess some form of sentience, or awareness, or consciousness in some degree (as I hazard to do) is proof of a naturalistic origin of consciousness is a complete non sequitur. You say this, but you can't show this. If consciousness is universal in living systems, all the more reason to doubt it has a naturalistic cause. For finite things do not constitute universal things.
I disagree that consciousness is an "attribute." Philosophy generally regards attributes as accidental, rather than substantial qualities. Substantial qualities inhere in the very nature or essence of a thing, or what defines it as being what it is. For example, WRT a rectangular solid, its extension, susceptibility to gravity, and like considerations are its substantial properties. (I.e., it cannot lose these properties and still be a rectangular solid.) Accidental properties of the solid might be things like its color, or its surface texture — things that could go missing without detracting away from the idea of a rectangular solid.
My own view is that consciousness is a substantial, not an accidental property of living systems. For the very idea of a living system predicates consciousness.
You wrote, "I’d post some theist rips on atheism in response to atheists’ mistreatment of Christianity if that would ease your pain, but do we really want to go there?"
I didn't come here for a food fight, elfman2. I came here for a rational debate. And I am not in pain.
betty boop. If movement for instance “is universal in living systems”, is that also “all the more reason to doubt it has a naturalistic cause”. Of course not. That needs to be rethought.
Consciousness grows more apparent in higher animals. It corresponds to regions of brain development that we see light up during mental processing. We study how it's diminished from various brain injuries. Evidence points to it as a process like “running”, “revolving”, “computing”. I just looked up what’s available and found the second and third review of The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach to be interesting.
The burden of proof for the existence of a soul (or anything else) is on those promoting it. Science (like myself) simply disregards it. If the soul's possible existence is to be considered evidence based, its proponents need to present evidence.
I’m not aware of philosophy regarding attributes as accidental. Every characteristic, property and every adjective AFAIK is an attribute.