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

[Whateverist]

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.

Yup.

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.

Neo - if you just admitted you have very little grounds for certainty you wouldn't paint yourself into these corners.  Anyone who can't own a little agnosticism is always going to come off as dishonest.  So, did you convince yourself at least or did you alienate yourself too?