Hey, I'm new

[Violet]

1. People who insist that they have such a thing and insult those who question it are fully expected to back up their claims. Notice how he frequently resorts to ad hominem rather than answering the question presented.

I don't disagree that he should back up his claims, and I agree that his resorting to ad hom's when your statement was scarcely impolite is childish.

2. Epistemology is not a matter of light disagreement, it is one of reason for which there are right and wrong answers. An epistemology is the single most valuable foundational belief not only because it is key to consistency and eliminating biases, but because it is so plainly open to questioning and refutation.

(Looks up epistemology on wikipedia... scoffs and existential scoff that sounds like a cough)

Precision does not imply accuracy. Every measurement you have access to might consistently show you x, when the reality is y. I don't mean to undermine the importance of the scientific method, but it is hardly a negligible problem associated with it. I accept the precision of said method to also be accurate, but I would be a fool to say I did not do so out of my strong bias in a 'material' and measurable world.

That one sees fewer biases present in a thing does not mean it is any more true or false. Bias is irrelevant to truth. What bias does is cloud one's ability to adapt to new perceptions of the truth. You and I are heavily biased that our perception of the universe is 'true'. Ultimately it is not, but truth makes no difference to us while it is our perceptions of the world that are even remotely useful to us.

I agree that science is open to questioning and refutation, and I believe that this is perhaps the single strongest point in its status as a unifying factor for us. Religious or otherwise 'personal' viewpoints require a common frame of reference to understand well, and many of us simply lack these 'spiritual' experiences (ie: some of us like me believe they do not exist).

3. Fr0d0's illusion that he is intellectually honest is contingent upon his maintaining that what he considers to be a justified belief (his belief in God) is in fact such. For him to fail to present a valid epistemology would absolutely defeat that proposition - His actions are telling that he does not have one and that is why he is so reluctant to even attempt to present it.

It is hardly difficult to create one, if this indeed were the case.

If he considers his belief to be justified, then that's it. You don't have to accept the same justifications, nor do I, for him to be 'justified' in believing something.

4. The only thing he doesn't want waved over his head that he is an irrational fool with an unjustified belief.

You mean like many already irrationally wave over his head?

It's one thing to let the masses think you are a moron. It's another thing to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of ensuring all of them think you are a moron always.