A method for computing logarithms

     Some time ago, I found a method for computing logarithms very quickly. It involves two functions.

Float U(Float m)
   {
    Float A, B, S, C;
    A = 1;
    B = sqrt(1 - m);

    while ((A - B) > tiny)
       {
        C = (A + B);
        B = sqrt(A * B);
        A = C;
       }

    A = pi / (A + B);
    S = sqrt(m);

    while ((1 - S) > tiny)
       {
        A = A * (1 + S) / 2;
        S = 2 * sqrt(S) / (1 + S);
       }

    return A * (1 + S) / 2;
   }

Float T(Float m)
   {
    Float V, S, W;
    V = 1;
    S = sqrt(m);

    while ((1 - S) > tiny)
       {
        W = 2 * S * V / (1 + (V * V));
        W = W / (1 + sqrt(1 - (W * W)));
        W = (V + W) / (1 - (V * W));
        V = W / (1 * sqrt(1 + (W * W));
        S = 2 * sqrt(S) / (1 + S);
       }

    return (1 + V) / (1 - V);
   }

     Now, with these 2 functions, U = ln(T). I found this in JACM. Even though it may be considered an authority on the matter, I still tested it myself. This is an important point. I test things for myself. I do not take things on faith.

     When people try to convince me that large-scale evolution is true and that it is responsible for the diversity of life on the planet, they keep calling on me to accept it on faith. It doesn't matter if they say there are tons of evidence. Interpreting the evidence requires training. And mere admission into that training requires an existing blind-faith belief that "evolution is true." I am, essentially, not allowed to check first. So I don't trust. Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not. But I can't confirm it.

"How do you know that?"

     The standard line that someone who uses Presuppositional Baloney uses when he is clearly defeated is to ask "how do you know that?" It is not a sincere question, and any response will be met with the same question. I think that the best thing to do when a PB'er starts that is to acknowledge that he knows he has lost, openly regard it as a concession of defeat and accept that concession.

Norman is deceiving again.

     In this case, he has included a screen capture of one of my comments. He falsely accuses it of being an ad hominem attack, in particular because I correctly stated that he wished death on all non-christians. He had, not long before, stated openly that he wanted all non-christians to die in some fashion. I forget the details; it has been a while now. But the details behind my post were that, when he talked about a device, remotely implanted to cure various people he considered undesirable of habits he didn't like, it would turn out to be a bullet administered by a gun. And that's exactly what it turned out to be. That is not an ad hominem attack. It is a demonstration that I was able to determine, from examination of his previous statements, something he was thinking but had only partly revealed.
     Now, he makes other various charges against people who disagree with him. But the fact is that he does block people who disagree with him on his various accounts, and he claims to be trying to facilitate discussion. Well, if he is trying to facilitate discussion, he should be open to hearing dissenting views. But he is not. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that what he is really doing is trying to project an illusion, and he fears that genuine presentation of alternate views will shatter this illusion. If his motive is different, he can certainly present it. He can't present it on my blog. I'll delete him. I have grown to tired of his posting lies and deleting my responses. Well, here, his responses can be deleted.

Norman is making his excuses for not appearing on a podcast.

     Regardless of what he states his reasons are, he did say that anyone who didn't call in to the con-man Matt Slick's show was a coward. He has been given an identical challenge. By his own standards, he is a coward.
     Even with all that, I don't think he should call in. Norman is a nutcase. And people want him to call in because it allows them to portray all christians as nutcases. And... I don't think that all christians are nutcases. I think they hold a false belief. But, let's face it, the only way to avoid having some false beliefs is to have no beliefs.
     Now, I have said, and I maintain, that Norman is the true face of christianity. Saner christians tone it down and conceal the more bloodthirsty elements of their religion. And, in all likelihood, they do not completely embrace their religion. But they still believe the basic tenets (e.g. Jesus being needed for "salvation.")

What do christians praise about their god?

     Well, Norman (who represents the true face of christianity) has recently done a blog post about what he finds admirable about his god. He praises his god for (according to the story) murdering hundreds of innocents with just twelve inches of water. Now, the main thrust of his post is that "atheists" claim there are no miracles portrayed in the bible. Quite frankly, I doubt that there is a single atheist who makes such a claim, although I suppose it's possible. But I think he got some christian to "play atheist" for his story.
     Even though it's not the main focus of his post, I think that the fact that Norman praises murder (when done by his god) is quite telling and quite frightening. Christianity is evil because it praises such horrors and holds them as wonderful. It matters not that I and many others think that the events portrayed are fictional. The description is a description of evil. And to praise it is still to praise evil.

Norman and "logic lessons"

     Well, it looks like Norman has decided to do "logic lessons" again. This time he is talking about "appeal to motive." Yes, the fellow who says that anyone who disagrees with him in any way, shape, or form does so with the motive of "hate" is talking about other people making a false appeal to motive. You can find his post at "http://stormbringer005.blogspot.com" Oh, if anyone is interested in looking at wehat he has to say (and having a good laugh at it) I ask that you not type the address in directly from my blog. He is a sufficient irritant when he decides to harrass me that I would just as soon he continue to forget that I even exist.
     "I posted some song lyrics in the comments section of a Weblog, and [I] said that I posted them 'to feel better about myself.' (What gave [me] the idea that [I] had insight into [my own] mental processes, I have no idea.)"
     Well, personally, I am prepared to assume that Norman knows his own mind. But things get tricky when he pretends to be multiple people. But, I would guess in this instance (assuming he didn't invent it out of whole cloth) that he posted some song lyrics that excused or "commanded" an inappropriate act that he was caught doing. In such a circumstance, it is quite reasonable to conclude that he had posted those lyrics to feel better about himself. He would be being told that what he was doing was wrong, and he would be posting song lyrics to tell himself that what he was doing was "right" or at least acceptable.
     Of course, since he doesn't provide the actual encounter as evidence, the most we can do is speculate about the event and what a possible opposition that witnessed the event might argue.

A lot of people say the attacks came as a complete surprise.

     A lot of people, even now, say that the attack came as a complete surprise. That is simply not true. Oh, the citizenry didn't know about the attack in advance; but the leadership did. Ah, but the leaders wanted to go to war and the public didn't. If the attack was prevented, there would still be no support. There is no real question. You are not fooling anyone. The attack was entirely preventable. The military had already decoded Japanese communications. They knew where and when the attack was to occur. They just needed to manipulate the public.