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

Just for the sake of clarity I'm going to respond to your argument on a line-by-line basis. "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: B. Humans should only believe in things that can be scientifically verifiable." When you say that you believe in a culture where "people are as informed about life and the universe as possible", I'm curious as to how you would suggest we do that in any manner other than by believing only in things that are scientifically verifiable. I think both you and I could agree that if one were to believe in the existence of dragons, one would not be very "informed" about life or the nature of our universe. In turn it logically follows to say that belief in things that cannot be scientifically verified is not an "informed" belief in the slightest. Realizing this, my point still stands: Humans have the right to believe only in that which they can prove with objective evidence. They do not have the right to believe in fairy tales, especially when those same tales actively promote killing fans of other fairy tales. "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'." I sincerely doubt that you believe the statement you wrote. Take for an instance a man who believes it is his moral prerogative to impregnate as many women - by force if necessary - in order to ensure the survival of his genes. Now you and I both would "judge" this man's beliefs as dangerous because they clearly and unabashedly are. And again, it would follow my previous statements to say that this man should not be encouraged to hold these beliefs. They should be actively confronted and the behavior should be curtailed. Indeed what is truly dangerous in this case is not the "judging" of another's behavior, but rather the lack that judgment in the first place. By taking such a moral relativist position, you are in effect justifying this man's beliefs because you have stated no one has the right to tell him he is wrong - which is not only an intrinsically illogical statement, but a rather selfish one too. "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 recall arguing that we need "know everything possible to evaluate complete and absolute truth". Furthermore, the scientific analogy is rather flawed because any valid hypothesis would first rely upon a series of objective observations. One wouldn't create a hypothesis about the nature of the universe, and then throw in the idea of God "just because" it might be true. We can know only that which we observe, to speculate further is to be completely illogical and unscientific - something we don't have the right to do. "Fundamentally, every human has the right to believe, even if only silently, what they wish." Do I have the right to believe that I can murder someone and receive 72 virgins as a reward? No. Do I have the right to believe that if I see one homosexual man with another that I should stone them to death where they lie? No. There are limits to what we can believe in. These limits should be enforced even if it makes you uncomfortable. To defend your right to believe anything you want defends any one of the rights I just listed as well as a myriad of other monstrous ideas - which in of itself is a patently selfish exercise. "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 has nothing to do with this argument. If you "choose" to believe in something for which you have no evidence, I will then "choose" to remove any amount of influence you have over my life. I will "choose" to prevent you from voting, from holding public office, or in any manner affecting my life with the consequences of your insistence to hold unfounded beliefs. "First, let me say that I am a FIRM believer in the scientific process...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." It would seem, having read this last passage, that you are in fact not a "FIRM" believer in the scientific process. If you were, you would understand that science does indeed "have the ability to piece together past events". For instance, the Dinosaurs, roman Civilization, any aspect of Cosmology (It is in fact a "looking" into the past), etc. Our understanding of each of these "past events" was "pieced" together by the scientific process. To say that it does not have the ability to make accurate conjectures of past events is ignorant of the fundamental ideas behind science. "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." You walk back into the room and look at the wall. That would be "scientific". "We can only surmise the truth from subjective accounts that may be flawed." I'm not willing to indulge arguments that treat the scientific process as subjective. "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." One can make an assumption based upon evidence. As I have never seen heaven, nor has anyone else, neither of us still has the right to believe it exists. And you are quite right about a belief in heaven having serious implications. If I believe that after I martyr myself and kill 100 innocent people, I will continue to exist in some form in a "heaven" - I will be much more likely to do so - perhaps even eager to. If on the other hand I realize that this life is finite and terminates at some temporal point, I am much less likely to kill myself or anyone else for fear that they might do the same. "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." You are now arguing my point. "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." This "due diligence" you speak of is commonly known as evidence. The "verifying" of details is again known as "experimentation". You seem to agree with me on many points of my argument, and yet you use euphemisms to deflect the point that you cannot accept - a point which you already seem to believe: People do not have the right to believe anything they want. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: I refuted the arguments my opponent presented, and have yet been offered a convincing and logical alternative to my original conjecture. I look forward to my opponent's response to both the original arguments, and the ones presented here.