People do not have the right to an absolute "freedom of belief"

Continuing the previous format: "My opponent has illustrated a huge problem with his argument. He uses the example of believing in dragons, making the assumption that no such ancient animal existed, nor could have existed simply because there is not yet proof of this." This is not an assumption, as assumptions are "logical" inferences formed without objective evidence. This is a scientific fact, and in this case my scientific evidence is a decisive lack of evidence supporting a "dragon's" existence. Because there have been no fossils of "dragons" found, nor have there been fossils found even remotely resembling "dragons" among contemporary organisms of the era, I have no right in believing they exist - barring discovery itself. Therefore, my point still stands: I cannot believe things just because they might be true - there must be a foundation upon which my beliefs can be supported and defended. " Many people believe in things that they do not even understand let alone be fully knowledgeable about. They ignorantly subscribe to things and are nothing like what they claim to believe. " You are deliberately clouding the issue here: I am not arguing that people shouldn't believe in what they don't understand; I am arguing that people cannot believe in things for which they have no evidence. There is a distinct and pervasive difference between ignorance of a mechanism, and belief in one for which there is no objective evidence. "I am far from a moral relativist. I believe most things have a clear path to wrong and right. But, what I do oppose is people deciding FOR ME what is right and wrong." This is the same justification my hypothetical rapist would offer once you or I condemned his actions. By taking this position you are indeed espousing the view of a moral relativist by saying no one can judge the beliefs of another person. Where you and I seem to differ is that I believe it is wrong to rape people and I will actively prevent anyone from holding that view point. You, in order to logically stay consistent, must defend this rapist's right to continue assaulting women because no one has the "right" to "censor" his beliefs. As you can see, this is an absurd position, one which I very much doubt you subscribe to. Therefore, my point still stands. Beliefs that are dangerous, unfounded, and unprovable cannot be allowed to propagate; furthermore, they should be condemned by means necessary until extinction. "My point was that when people like my opponent are the ones deciding what is "scientifically verifiable", science fails. Science and faith both thrive in environments where the mind is open to believe and imagine. It's conviction that makes people keep looking for a cure for AIDS, because they just "know" its out there. There is no evidence of this, but they believe it to be true. This fuels the chase." This quote demonstrates your utter lack of understanding concerning the scientific process. People do not "decide" what is scientifically verifiable. To suggest so is a logical contradiction: if people "decided" what was verifiable, it would be subjective and no longer "verifiable". As for your example concerning AIDS, there are almost innumerable scientific journals who would disagree with your assertion that there is "no evidence a cure for AIDS is possible" and I would rather not waste space citing them. "But, how pompus is it to say that because one has never seen evidence of something himself, something that someone else believes IS justifiable is not true? Again, reasoning, debate, and dialogue are important for people to find a place of agreement." It is not "pompous" to demand evidence for the claims someone makes. If you claim the world is flat, I would like to see some evidence. If you claim that all black people are genetically inferior, I would also like to see some evidence. If you claim there is a supernatural being who is omnipotent and intimately concerned with whether or not I eat shellfish (Leviticus), I would most certainly like to see that evidence. And as you can see, your earlier claim of my "bias" towards people of faith is unfounded - I simply make it abide by the same rules I apply to every other aspect of human discourse. It is not biased of me to practice equanimity between disciplines. "At the end of the day, two people with the exact same evidence often do come to different conclusions. " I would like an accurate and honest example of what you wrote here. " Nothing in the past is completely verifiable" Yes it is. For you to make this claim is absolutely ridiculous. Dinosaurs existed. This was "proved" by science. Dinosaurs also lived in the past. This is "proved" by science. Therefore, using our skills of logic, we must assume that there were beings that existed before our time named Dinosaurs, and that this fact was "proved" by science. Debating this point further is a waste of time. If you cannot accept the ability of science to operate in "past" times than you have already conceded this debate on the grounds of debating the most primordial of facts. "Then my opponent is in denial of the reality of the scientific process. To elevate the scientific process to anything more than highly educated evaluation and conclusion is to make a religion out of it." I'm assuming here that your euphemism of "Highly educated evaluation" actually means "Not only does all available evidence support, but there is also no contrary evidence to, the hypothesis." Again your use of euphemisms here does nothing to further your argument. And furthermore, the semantic argument you are using has not disproved any of my original points, nor any of the additional points I have raised in rounds #2 and #3. "Again, my opponent shows his bais. You cannot disbelieve something simply because you have not seen it. You have never seen a dodo bird, but it existed." Again you are intentionally clouding the issue I am arguing. Because I have not physically "seen" a Dodo bird does not mean there is no evidence for its' existence. This is a point you must concede, not only for this debate to continue, but for you to gain a better understanding of what "evidence" actually is. "No, actually I am reiterating MY point that scientific verification is not always possible" Scientific verification is only not possible for those things which are unscientific. Those things which are unscientific, or those things which have no evidence or moral / logical foundation, are things which we should not be allowed to believe in. Due diligence is not only about hard evidence. It is about evaluations, conclusions, testimony, and keeping an open mind. Experimentation is a great way to test a hypothesis. But, sometimes experimentation does not have context in an argument. You cannot experiment to see if someone called you a jerk. You can only gather the testimony of others. "Evaluations", "Conclusions", and "Testimonies" are all aspects of the scientific process. I don't understand why you continue to argue this point. You need these things - as well as several others - in varying degrees in order to believe in something, as these things allow you to prove your point to others objectively (i.e. scientifically). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: I have again refuted each of my opponents points, and he has yet to refute a single original contention of mine, but also any of the other points I have brought up. I also look forward to a response more willing to depart from the semantics of the failing argument and address the fundamental issues at hand.