No, I'm not going to. Because you're not really interested, you just want to have an argument.

I'll give you my evidence for _that_ claim:

I already talked about this in my first big post to the thread - just search for Rolf Harris. If you were actually the slightest bit interested in reading anything I write, you'd have known that already.

I knew I should have given up on this thread when you brought up North Korea. Does Kim Jong-un have a Godwin equivalent whom I can invoke?

No, the weak arguments are the misrepresenting the origin of the New Testament, the blind assumptions about my background, the claim that atheism is a default, the ignoring of documents dated earlier that you claim, and the gross lampooning of the intent of religion.

Asking for evidence is where we came in, when you asserted that "science is constantly proving religion wrong" and I asked what you meant. Nothing you've said since has backed up that initial claim.

Sorry, was that supposed to mean me? Please, just read the first paragraph of my first post again.

Do you not see that you are claiming the very same position of superior understanding that you're telling me I'm not allowed to have?

And you strike me as someone who uses ad hominem to bolster a weak argument.

Your "onus of proof", "knowing God's will" and "geographical default" objections are noted and argued in the video I already pointed to. And your version of the history of the New Testament is so inaccurate that even wikipedia is less cynical.

Yes, I've done that (well most of it - I hold Master of Sciences degree from Cambridge University). And yet I also believe the claims that the Bible makes about itself, about God, and about us. I believe that the historical authenticity of the text stands up to rational scrutiny. And I don't see any of the things you've mentioned as being contradictory to it. Exactly which religion is disproved by tectonic plate theory?

It is important here to distinguish between the core beliefs of the religion (and I'm going to speak specifically of Christianity, i.e. what the Bible says) versus the traditions, practices and interpretations of strictly human origin (dogma as you put it). Somebody else mentioned Galileo. Yes, he came into conflict with the church authorities when he showed that Earth was not at the centre of the solar system; but it wasn't a "disproof of religion" as the Bible doesn't make that claim. The suggestion that it did came partly from tradition of the prevailing mindset, and partly from an excessively literal reading of verses in Psalms or Ecclesiastes which say things like "the sun rises". (How can I say that one interpretation is excessively literal? Psalms is a songbook. The Bible is a collection of about six different types of literature, and you can identify the bits which are narrative and can be taken pretty much at literal face value, and the bits which are poetry and a more metaphorical approach is justified. When it says "the sun rises" in Psalms that's no more intended to be a definitive statement of relative motion, than when Rolf Harris sang it).

Not to say that all dogma is wrong - to fully understand the Bible would be more than a life's work, so I'm glad that people have given me a useful shortcut by summarising the flow of it. But I don't accept their words blindly - I check it for self-consistency, for consistency with the primary source (the Bible), and for consistency with my experience and understanding of the way the universe works - including my scientific training.

You claim "religion [...] makes a virtue out of accepting dogma" (and maybe some religions do - it's difficult to argue against such generalities) but mine doesn't, and I certainly don't think that's a biblical principle. On the contrary, there are number of biblical examples where people, on hearing something from their religious leaders, are commended for taking a sceptical (dare I say, evidence-based reasoning) approach by checking up on it first to see if it's true. (Acts 17:11 is the first one that comes to mind)

No, I don't agree that those terms are equivalent. Faithful Christians are no more ignorant for believing in God, than an atheist is for not doing so.

Sorry for not responding to every point in your post, but I have a feeling that I'd be here all day if I tried. Can I suggest if you're genuinely interested in how I might justify my disagreement with your points of view, that rather than try to continue a long thread in here, could I point you to a video of an Authors@Google talk by Tim Keller (author of "The Reason for God") in which he expresses similar ideas much better than I can.

Incidentally, I'm not typing this with any particular aim or expectation of trying to convince you that the Bible is true. I'm just arguing that believing it is at least rational, and compatible with a scientific approach. If there were credible contradictory evidence then faith would be preposterous, but I am convinced this is not the case.

[citation needed]

Google starts to index an additional source of publicly available content.

or in other words,
nothing at all has happened.

This should be tagged !story.

Let me get this straight. Apple have released something shiny and not given it to you for free, and in your head that means they are forcing you to pirate it. Forcing you? Really, is that the best you can do?

I don't have to; when the announcement of the jailbreak and the incitement to run pirated software appear in the same slashdot headline, you're doing a perfectly good job of tarring yourselves.

Great, you can run Siri on an iPod touch. Well done.

Now try convincing the world at large that jailbreaking is not primarily motivated by the running of pirated apps.

FTFY.

but most of all I like LOUD speakers

The other feature of successful game engines is that they, generally speaking, don't pin a core i7 at 100% usage drawing half a dozen objects at 15fps with a lighting model which would have looked dated in 2001.

I thought it was about camouflaging unpicturesque donkeys.

I thought it was fair clear in context that I was talking about dissatisfaction on the part of other manufacturers, who had bought into Android on the understanding that they would all be on a level playing field.