Here is a relevant example:
Someone: Reality is independent of all human though and feelings/emotions.
Me: Okay, where are those then if not in reality?
That's not a relevant example because unsurprisingly, you again managed to completely misunderstand what was being said there (eventhough I clarified it a couple dozen times already).
The
workings of reality are independend of human thought, feelings, etc.
Atoms work the way they do, no matter if humans like that.
Gravity works the way it does, no matter if humans like that.
Time is relative, no matter if humans like that.
Quantum mechanics works the way it does, no matter if it makes humans uncomfortable
In other words, reality is what it is
regardless of human opinion.
As in: if all humans die today, the properties of atoms will remain unchanged, gravity will still work the way it does, the moon will continue orbitting this planet, the sun will keep on shining, etc .
Here it is as an example:
Premise: Biological evolution is a fact ( I agree even as religious)
Therefore it is wrong/unreasonable to deny that.
Nobody makes that argument.
It's rather unreasonable to deny it
in light of all the evidence in support of it.
That implies that one has to be aware of all the evidence in support of it first and THEN deny it.
As usual, you are once again completely misrepresenting what people actually say and mean.
So here is what always happens if you look closer: There are at least 3 positions:
Science is right and religion wrong.
Religion is right and science wrong.
And objective testable evidence is the way to find out which of these is accurate.
Both have limited usefulness and neither works for all of human life.
Scientific methodology works pretty well to distinguish true statements from false statements.
Yes, you require a statement that can be subject to such line of questioning first.
Here's the thing though: if science can't answer a question, there is no reason to think religion can.
