Now you are muddling up beliefs about the results of observations with beliefs about absolute "truth". As I already explained, scientific theories say nothing about absolute truth, what they do is predict the results of further observations (i.e. experiments), that's it!
No, I'm not muddling up anything. I'm simply saying that if you believe in science as a way to establish truth with certainty - you have blind faith.
Since you seem to do that, I'm saying you seem to have blind faith.
Otherwise, I don't know why you'd be busy ridiculing religion constantly. You can't on the one hand say that you know you can't know truth, and on the other hand use your predicted observations that might not have any truth to them as some kind of offensive tool to dismiss faith. It's as if you think that because human beings observe patterns and recognise them, that alone is proof enough to dismiss everything that doesn't seem to have observable or rational patterns.
But if you know that you have no more hold on truth than religious people - there's nothing more to discuss. Then we agree.
So a justified belief is one where you believe that the results of an experiment or observation will turn out a particular way based on a theory that has been tested, replicated and verified using observations of the world. That's very different than believing in something that no one has ever been able to reliably detect, such as deities or fairies, not least when these concepts are in gross conflict with how we understand the world through looking at it.
You have no idea if anyone has been able to reliably detect a deity. Lots of people claim to have done that, AFAIK. That YOU are unable to detect it or "feel" it - doesn't mean it's necessarily impossible. You might simply be unable to comprehend or grasp such matters.
As for your tested, replicated and verified theories using observations of the world - that's once again of limited use when our ability to do so might very well be highly flawed, tainted, limited or otherwise incomplete.
If you think relying on something that could very easily be utterly incomplete and flawed is "better" than having faith, that's on you. I'd call that blind faith.
You have nothing - absolutely nothing - to support that our ability to perceive or our capacity to comprehend is in any way complete or sufficient to establish reality with any kind of certainty.
Nothing…. except blind faith and the desperate assumption that what we understand and what we can measure is actually as it seems to be, and that we're really seeing everything there is when we apply our eyes to the task.
You think 2+2 = 4 is a universal law because it makes sense to you. You might not admit it, but you assume that's true because how can it not be? You can't imagine an alien or otherworldly mind functioning in a way where objects or measurements don't apply. 2+2 = 4 is yet another human construct that seems to fit our current reality.
If you're prepared to have that crash and burn, that's fine - but you sure don't seem to think that's feasible or even possible. If I'm wrong, then I have to say I don't know why you're so obsessed with the ridicule of faith.