I just took that.

Earlier you said that even in the absence of independent evidence, it is justified to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction. But now you do not accept that the serial murderer Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the killer has exposed that you do not in fact think that a belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

and

Earlier you said that it is justified to base one's belief about the external world on a firm inner conviction, even in the absence of any independent evidence for the truth of this conviction, but now you say it is not justified to believe in God on just those grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!

I answered the first question that way because I believe there are some inner convictions it is justified to base one's beliefs on (for instance, the belief that there is an external world and that I am not a brain in a vat), but I do not believe this is true for all inner convictions. So that is not actually a contradiction.

I didn't get any other "contradictions" and I suspect that it's because I took everything very literally there.