Another Sucker of an Atheist

See yet another failure of an argument for relativity here, as Mr. Francois Tremblay makes fools out of the Atheist population. I have written this e-mail to him and anticipate an eventual response :) (No doubt):

III. Argument for the relativity of truth-value
There cannot be an absolute truth-value to any given proposition, because judgment does not exist apart from human minds. (Absolutely True). Depending on one’s context of knowledge, a proposition may be judged as true or false. (Might you mean, the Principle of Bivalence?) We can formalize the argument as such :
(1) Truth-value could be absolute if it was independent of our context of knowledge.
(2) Truth-value could be independent of our context of knowledge if it was not dependent on our minds.
(3) Something can only be dependent on our minds if it is contained within our minds.
(4) Truth-values are not contained outside of our minds. Neither are information. Only the referents of propositions and information are located outside of our minds.
(5) Truth-values are not dependent on our minds. (from 3 and 4)
(6) Truth-values are not independent of our context of knowledge. (from 2 and 5)
(7) Truth-values are not absolute. (from 1 and 6)
This must not be misinterpreted as meaning that there is no objective reality. While the existence of an objective reality is absolute, truth-values are not. Truth-values are not inherent to objects outside of us, since there are no propositions outside of us to compare our propositions to. (Oh, the old Epistemological argument already answered away by 1000 other Apologists. Truth does not conform to reality....I see. So why then is truth defined as: "conformity to reality or actuality." Is that old dang blasted dictionary lying again :).)
All that we perceive are existents such as table, chair, moon, star. We perceive them with our senses, and that much is absolute. (So, perception is objectively true, since we all perceive things in the same sense at the same time?) But our propositions based on the information we interpret from these percepts are entirely ours, and do not belong to the table, chair, moon or star. That information is not absolute but the result of our discoveries about the natural world. That process of rational discovery is relative. (Okay, so you expect me to understand what this statement is in reference to, since its "entirely yours" then?)
Is there something absolutely true ? Is anything absolutely true ? No. (Absolutely False). All knowledge is subject to reasonable doubt, pending on the growth of our TKB. (Including that statement, in which case, you actually are absolutely reasonably certain of this one and only thing). While extremely unlikely, things that are known today may be overturned tomorrow (Popular opinion changes, truth does not).
Does this relativity imply that epistemic responsibility does not exist ? Not at all. (HA! Loving the irony here.) As I said before, one is responsible for aligning his own knowledge with the TKB of his own time. To be ignorant of scientific fact is one thing : to willfully argue against scientific fact is another. (Prove this statement with "Scientific facts." Facts are not self interpreting.) To follow one’s childhood beliefs about religion or politics is one thing : to willfully ignore rational argument to the contrary is another. (YES! Unless of course that childhood belief is true. In which case, I easily argue you have created a genetic fallacy here, since it really does not follow that because it was instilled as a child, it is false).