Norman brings up a good point.

     It just isn't the one he thinks. The "Tea Party" is very much part of the establishment. It has to be. None of its members were arrested.
     In every protest movement, members are arrested. Usually, there are riots. One hypothesis is that the establishment sends in confederates to throw bricks, smash windows, and commit other harmful actions while acting as a "protester" to create an image that the protesters are just a bunch of thugs. Now, some actual protesters may follow like sheep and join in, or they may not. Either way, the fakes have given the police a "reason" to arrest everyone. This hypothesis seems to fit rather strongly and I am inclined to believe it is the reality.
     As Norman pointed out, none of this happened with the "Tea Party" movement. The only conclusion is that it was only made to look like a protest, but had the full blessings of the establishment.

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.