Epicurus and Anus in the Opinions of the Rambam

Side note:
 
In your last lesson on dogmatics, you discussed the words of Maimonides, who distinguished between heresy that stems from 'following the lightness of reason' and a person born among the Karaites,' and while the latter is a forced heretic, the former is an apocryphal heretic.
 
The explanation, of course, says the opposite (or rather that the one who disbelieves in opinions is certainly no less a sinner than the other).
 
Indeed, in the words of the Rambam, I thought of suggesting – similar to what was said by one of the participants in the class – that the Rambam is concerned with that heretic who followed his own corrupt opinion – that is, this is a person who truly followed only the whims of his heart and the explanations are just a cover. Regarding this suggestion, you said that it is difficult to reconcile this with the words of the Rambam, who should have divided and said 'what things are said: that he followed his own weak opinion, but when he reached a conclusion from his own study – he was forced.'
 
But in my opinion, this problem is not difficult in the position of the Rambam, who was a dogmatist, and certainly thought that the truth was with him. Anyone who thinks otherwise certainly has not thought enough, and it is certainly the result of instinct. Indeed, this view can be disputed (and certainly today), but in principle it seems to me that this proposal is reasonable in the Rambam.
 
Either way, this is really a side note. Maimonides' opinion is not relevant to the body of the conceptual argument with 'Anus Bedaot'.