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

I want to open my first argument by stating that I share my opponent's disdain for ignorance and the resulting breeding ground it creates for manipulation, abuse, and violence. I believe that promoting a culture where people are as informed about life and the universe as possible is critical to our evolution as a species and the growth of our collective wisdom. Where I differ from my opponent is in his conclusion that: A.People should not be allowed to exercise the RIGHT to "absolute freedom of belief" B.Humans should only believe in things that can be scientifically verifiable. Before I start with my opening arguments, let me state that although I agree with the sentiment that my opponent has expressed, I find it dangerous for any human being to judge what beliefs are justifiable and what beliefs are "dangerous". Each individual can only know truth in the way they have perceived it. At no point in time can we know for sure that we know everything possible to evaluate complete and absolute truth. Such an assumption applied to science, for example, would stifle a hypothesis before it could be tested simply because it is not deemed a justifiable hypothesis. I don't see how that can allow humans to progress. THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF BELIEF Fundamentally, every human has the right to believe, even if only silently, what they wish. The human mind collects information from the senses and processes them into observations, which are in turn filtered into beliefs, values, and convictions. We are both limited to and enhanced by the data we receive. It is by reasoning, both internally and with others that we sort out our processing and build points of reference for properly interpreting the information. But, there lies one proverbial wrench in the gears, and that is the issue of choice. Choice creates opinion from observation, so that we not only interpret the action, but what it "means". This meaning becomes our belief, and can differ between two people with the exact same experience. But, who is without choice that can judge inerrantly which evaluation is "illegal"? SCIENTIFIC PROOF AS A BASIS FOR TRUTH First, let me say that I am a FIRM believer in the scientific process. I believe that it is the best way to investigate all universal and in-process truths. The problem with science is that it lacks the ability to subjectively and inerrantly piece together past events, although it claims to have that power. Ultimately, the closest we can come to a "fact" is a theory, which is in itself an evaluative assumption, or most popularly known as a BELIEF. For example, if I have a conversation with someone and make a statement about the color of a wall, that event has happened in the past. Without recording the event and replying into the present, there is no certain way to scientifically evaluate the event. We can only surmise the truth from subjective accounts that may be flawed. So, when I state that I used the word RED and the listener argues that I used the word BLUE, we are stuck. At the point the only option is to honor all beliefs and move forward to a new conclusion, or allow the wrong one to show itself by executing on all of the decisions that are based on the belief. We will either find out the belief was true, untrue, or unimportant. Beliefs about heaven are a great example. How can one make an assumption while still alive? Any belief either way is a belief nonetheless. Both can have serious implications. At the end of the day, the decision and all resulting decisions are personal and irreconcilable. Who has the right to believe what they believe? Both. IGNORANCE, RESPONSIBILITY, AND FAITH The issue is not one of scientific verification, but of due diligence. If a human being assumes a belief system in spite of clear data and observations available to him, this is "reckless" faith. As individual who would base their entire life on such ideals could be very dangerous or, just as bad, could just head the wrong direction with their lives. Humans should therefore insist on some type of a due diligence process before they assimilate to a system of belief. This would accommodate the inability to scientifically prove many things that are true (like a past event or conversation), but would allow folks to verify the details that contributed to the original observation. That being said, this can only be elected by the individual. People always act on what they believe, whether they know it or not. We all act on assumptions. You drive because you believe that it is safe to. You work because of your belief about life if you didn't. You stay married because you have faith in the one you are married to. These things can't be substantiated, and are subject to being questioned. But, ultimately, people will always act according to how they perceive the world – their belief system and their core values. CONCLUSION Therefore, not only do I believe that humans should maintain the right to open their hearts and believe what they know to be true to the best of their knowledge, but also that that making it illegal to express it will only serve to oppress that belief and help it into extremism and martyrdom. For those beliefs that lead to negative and destructive expression, we have a legal system to punish the acts and debate/dialogue to change the ideals if possible.