Moontanman

yes

I would suggest you state your points a bit less obtusely.

Hello pot, have you met kettle? I find your assertions that my philosophy is an aphorism insulting.

In all seriousness I see no empirical evidence of anything supernatural, until such evidence is given the concept of a god is a non starter for me as is everything that flows from that concept.

That would be a true statement but I am not impressed by people who ignore the tenets of their religion so they can tolerate the people who do follow the intolerance their religion demands but they ignore. The intolerant who are actually following their religions tenets are easy to see but the ones who try and pretend their religion doesn't demand those things when it clearly does are not a good thing, they simply insulate the fundies from criticism while they continue to undermine society. I am tolerant of religions who do not think they have the right the tell everyone else what to do, I am mostly familiar with the Abrahamic religions to be honest. I must have missed the question, feel free to ask again.

The really sad part is that that 20% are driving our politics and the intolerant laws that enforce that 20%s religious intolerance. The 80% cannot bring themselves to oppose the 20% due to their own religious beliefs.

You didn't ask a question.

I disagree.

Then I would tolerate them Yeah the MAGA movement and White Christian Nationalism tend to cloud ones perceptions.

No I do not It's called humor Dim, you chuckle and carry on.

This is not a thread to discuss my problems with religion, I'd be glad to school you and your "tolerance" of those who will not tolerate you if you start your own thread on the subject but this is not the thread to do it.

Me liking them has nothing to do with it, their intolerance of anyone who doesn't follow their world view is the issue. In fact, their obsession of trying to change the law to restrict the life style/actions they don't approve of says it all IMHO... carry on.

I have to say, I am very much against religion, as soon as you find a religion that is tolerant of people who do not want to follow their mythology I'll be tolerant of them, being liberal doesn't mean being stupid and that is what being tolerant of someone who is not tolerant of you would mean. Carry on...

Sadly I only speak pidgin math.

I think of my world view as a skeptic, somewhat militant of late, which for me includes atheism but I would never say there is no god but I would say I don't believe what theists are asserting but I'm open to honest discussion on any topic, to me "honest" means being open to the possibility I am wrong.

Is atheism a worldview? Is a stance on one issue a world view?

I would imagine that by now we could make them even more powerful and maybe physically smaller but no one has them now mostly due to many small bombs being more effective than one big bomb in destroying a ground target.

The Tzar Bomba no longer exists, it was a one off 50 megaton bomb so large only one could barely be carried to the text site by the largest bomber they had, what is your point?

Your link said that around 300 miles was the most effective height and your examination for a 100 megaton blast was deceptively used to assert the danger of such a EMP from the distance of the moon. You be you dude, I see no reason to try and reason this any further.

Damn, like trying to nail jello to a tree, your post hoc ability to explain this away is amazing. Why can't you just admit you were wrong? Mordred, you are far better educated than me and I like that you are here to explain these things, you've set me straight several times but in this case IMHO your own exaggerated fear of nukes has clouded your judgement. There was no need to do this, there was no need to assert the EMP effect, your own link to star fish prime clearly stated the EMP effect was most effective at around 300 miles and your own calculations showed the effect of even the outrageous sized 100 megaton imaginary bomb would not be a danger yet you asserted it was. Why? Why not use a realistic sized bomb and show how close it would have to be to pose a realistic danger? I am not your equal in any way but I can recognize emotional deception when I see it, at every turn you rejected any information that indicated that nukes aren't the extreme danger you want others to think they are. I readily admit that current culture seems to be promoting this idea of a nuke being all powerful and all dangerous through fear mongering what some terrorist or rouge nation might do with one bomb but these emotional notions should not enter into a scientific discussion. To have a productive discussion requires the are all on the same page not out chasing deceptive or emotional arguments, when I am wrong I readily admit it...

Again you sad the effect would not be significant not me. That is why what you asserted was deceptive, you tried to convince us the EMP from the moons orbit would be dangerous to the earth in some significant way, then when called out on it you admitted the effect would be minimal and not dangerous. That is deception. I have no doubt that such an important experiment could be approved if proposed by the proper authorities.

Again how do you justify the deceptive nature of your assertion? I'm not questioning your math I'm questioning how you used it to support your deceptive assertion!

Possibly we should try this experimentally to get a handle on just how effective nuke could be? Choose a small asteroid and see what the effect of a nuke is exactly?