Why science and religious fatih need not be in conflict: It's as easy as 1-2-3!

[Angrboda]

I don't accept that reformed epistemology is a valid epistemology, it's nothing but half-baked objections to classical foundationalism with no positive program of its own (aside from sneaking God in through the rear entrance).

I never thought you would accept it a valid since to you no epistemology is valid – including classical foundationalism.

You come to me with an incomplete epistemology that is little more than a stalking horse for religious ideas and you get all pissy when I object. You're no more capable of completing the reformed epistemology project than is Plantinga, otherwise you'd be arguing the issue instead of this massive bullshit rant. The fact of the matter is that you can't defend your concept of moral intuition as a properly basic belief.

Whenever it is convenient, you argue that the incorrigible experiences, such as personal identity, are illusions and self-evident principles, like the Principle of Non-Contradiction, are fictional. Your version of science is a cartoon. Your version of math has no essential connection to physical reality. The type of naturalism you espouse simply cannot survive the objections you raise to avoid theistic implications. In the end all you have left are shadows and fog.

This is nothing but distortion and ad hominem. It's nothing but a dishonest rant.

As for me, I never said that our cognitive tools are perfect, our intuitions unassailable, or our perceptions immune to error. I see no valid reason for doubting that despite these limitations, people can still have actual intellectual interaction with an external reality beyond themselves.

(emphasis mine)
Bullshit, that's exactly what you did. You posit a moral realism, bereft of mechanism, dismiss any objection to it with a trumped up epistemological framework and beg off on defending your "moral intuition" by saying that the objections to it are mere assertion. It's nothing but a stupid con. And when I don't fall for it, we get this stupid rant. Well fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You started by making what on the surface was a clear evidentialist claim that feelings are evidence of moral facts, and when challenged upon it, you duck inside a speculative epistemological shield, effectively shifting the burden of proof with a one size fits all argument from ignorance. You're so thoroughly dishonest you make me sick.