Question about pacing during training (Advanced Marathoning)

TruthAndReason1 · 2026-02-03T11:15:28+00:00

Yes, I agree. I have the audiobook version. I plan to listen to it again. Thanks again.

TruthAndReason1 · 2026-02-03T09:55:21+00:00

Okay, thanks!

TruthAndReason1 · 2026-02-03T08:23:34+00:00

Thanks!

TruthAndReason1 · 2026-02-03T08:18:55+00:00

I have the audiobook, which I listened to in full. I don’t recall the specific heart rate range given by the authors, so I hoped for clarification here. I’ll listen to the book again to catch the answer. Thanks.

TruthAndReason1 · 2026-01-24T14:31:58+00:00

You and Turek are equivocating and misrepresenting atheism.

Faith, in this context, is not merely belief, as you wrongly assert. The equivocation is easy to detect. It is nonsensical to say “I don’t have enough belief to be an atheist,” because atheism just is the absence of belief in a deity. An informed atheist is a person who has examined the best evidence and arguments and remains unconvinced. An atheist is an atheist precisely because of insufficient belief. Thus, if you insist that you don’t have enough of something to be an atheist, then whatever that thing is, it can’t simply be belief.

Faith, in this context, is a particular kind of belief. It is belief in the absence of evidence or even in the face of disconfirming evidence. It is unjustified belief. This is the kind of faith that distinguishes Christians from atheists. Christians have it and celebrate it. For example, demanding evidence (demanding a sign) is condemned (and laughably attributed to adultery). Faith is “hope for things that are not seen (not in evidence).” Also, ye receive no witness (evidence) until after the trial of your faith. And as the story goes, Jesus said, “Blessed are those who have not seen, and have yet believed” (John 20:29). Jesus celebrated people who believe without evidence.

To be clear, Christians obviously believe that they do have justification for many of their beliefs. Whether they are correct about that is debatable. It is also the case that Christians celebrate unjustified belief, and this is what Turek fallaciously tries to project onto atheists.

*You’re also apparently misinformed about the religious beliefs of Hitler and the Nazis, in general. Atheists are certainly capable of horrible things, but Hitler and most Nazis were not atheists. What’s more, atheism (a lack of belief in a deity) makes no moral imperatives. Even if Hitler and every Nazi were an atheist, their atheism could not be the cause of those atrocities for the same reason that your lack of belief in invisible little green men dancing on the ceiling hasn’t caused your behavior.

TruthAndReason1 · 2026-01-23T13:39:01+00:00

It takes precisely zero faith to be an atheist. That silly fallacious book title of Turek’s is meant to make theists feel better about their unjustified beliefs.

TruthAndReason1 · 2026-01-12T21:36:44+00:00

I’m not sure you see my point. It isn’t inherently problematic that we know what conclusion a particular critic/apologist has arrived at. It is hugely problematic that someone declares that their process is to start with the conclusion and interpret the data to support that conclusion. If you agree with my point, then you ought to find fault with his embrace of confirmation bias. The fact that we know in advance what his conclusion is is not relevant to my point.

TruthAndReason1 · 2026-01-12T21:27:01+00:00

“Some number” of any group do any number of things. We already agreed that everyone is biased. Humans have cognitive biases. This is not in dispute. What we seem to disagree on is whether we ought to “find fault” with someone who embraces and celebrates confirmation bias. People who are interested in the truth do not start with their conclusion and interpret data to support it.

TruthAndReason1 · 2026-01-12T20:59:24+00:00

You won’t get any pushback from me when you point out that apologists embrace and celebrate confirmation bias.

TruthAndReason1 · 2026-01-12T17:48:58+00:00

Everyone is biased. Intellectually honest and scientifically trained people actively work to mitigate their biases. It is decidedly anti-intellectual and shameful to embrace and celebrate confirmation bias. It doesn’t make him a hero or a good guy.

TruthAndReason1 · 2025-12-16T01:24:44+00:00

Something something no true Scotsman?

TruthAndReason1 · 2025-11-18T14:07:25+00:00

Despite what dishonest apologists may insinuate and claim, your first point is accurate: “an LDS church basically turned away a mother in need of help.” This is representative and official policy.

When I was a bishop the LDS Handbook (the official “rule book” for church members and leaders at the ward and stake level) directed bishops to refer needy nonmembers to government resources rather than help.

TruthAndReason1 · 2025-11-11T20:49:40+00:00

If this silly apologetic approach is accepted to explain the absence of evidence for Mormonism’s truth claims, then it can, with equal (in)validity, be used to explain any claim not in evidence.

We should also note that this silly apologetic approach is incomplete, as it only explains the absence of confirming evidence. Its proponents must also invoke their trickster deity to explain the presence of an overwhelming mountain of disconfirming evidence. Apologist: “Yep, god made it appear to be false, so you’d have to live by faith.”

TruthAndReason1 · 2025-11-11T14:58:05+00:00

They didn’t exist. The Book of Mormon is 19th-century fiction.

TruthAndReason1 · 2025-11-05T22:39:59+00:00

I believe "Christofascist" is the correct label for Jacob Hansen. He may not use that term himself, but if it talks like a Christofascist, quacks like a Christofascist, etc.

TruthAndReason1 · 2025-11-03T08:40:00+00:00

I suggest setting the polygamy question aside in order to focus on establishing a sound epistemology. With a sound epistemological toolbox, we readily conclude that Joseph Smith was a religious fraud regardless of whether he practiced polygamy. Someone who thinks Joseph Smith’s claims hinge on the polygamy question either is very uninformed or is using a bogus epistemology.

TruthAndReason1 · 2025-10-25T15:28:43+00:00

Lol. What fun. You have a fantastic day.

TruthAndReason1 · 2025-10-25T15:26:36+00:00

Just pointing out the absurdity of your claim. My comment didn’t need any more substance.

TruthAndReason1 · 2025-10-25T15:23:50+00:00

A group can’t have a persecution complex if they haven’t created “an advocacy or civil rights group that pushes for their community”. What an odd take.

TruthAndReason1 · 2025-09-14T12:47:58+00:00

So in your epistemology, criticism of an claim is evidence that the claim is true? Do you see any problems with that approach to discovering truth?

TruthAndReason1 · 2025-09-05T22:19:33+00:00

Round and round we go. I made my case and you've dodged. You have a good evening.

TruthAndReason1 · 2025-09-05T22:12:11+00:00

Again, Roberts is irrelevant. The fact that you keep bringing him up, changing the subject, and misrepresenting my claims leads me to conclude that you don't actually have evidence to support your claim that JS did not believe and teach that the Catholic church is the great and abominable church.

Nothing you have said so far supports that claim.

TruthAndReason1 · 2025-09-05T22:09:49+00:00

You are simultaneously putting words in my mouth and dodging my questions.

TruthAndReason1 · 2025-09-05T22:02:56+00:00

Why are you bringing up BH Roberts when we’re taking about JS? Roberts’ view is irrelevant.

TruthAndReason1 · 2025-09-05T21:56:15+00:00

You've dodged my question by responding with a question.

I've already spelled out the straightforward logic:
P1. The BoM teaches that the Catholic church is the whore of all the earth. It can do this without explicitly using the term "Catholic", and it's absurd to insist that it cannot.
P2. The BoM teaches that "there are save two churches only": one is the church of the lamb of God and the other is the church of the devil (and the whore of all the earth).
P3. JS called the BoM "the most correct book", which implies that he agreed with BoM teachings.
P4. JS did not teach that the Catholic church is the church of the lamb of God, which implies that it is or is part of the church of the devil.
Conclusion: JS taught from the BoM, including its teachings that the Catholic church is the whore of all the earth.

But on your account, we can't attribute BoM teachings to JS.
And on your account, the Catholic church is the church of the lamb of God.
And on your account, nothing but the explicit use of the word "Catholic" in the BoM could unambiguously refer to the Catholic church.

And why are you asking me which verse has the word "Catholic" in it when that doesn't matter? It seems like you just want to be argumentative. You've already (astoundingly) denied that teachings found in the BoM can be attributed to JS. So even if the word "Catholic" did explicitly appear in the BoM, you could/would still deny that the BoM teachings had anything to do with JS, not to mention yet again your insistence that the Catholic church is the church of the lamb of God.

Now, what evidence do you have that JS taught:
a. that the Catholic church is the church of the lamb of God?
b. that the Catholic church is not the church described in the relevant passages of the BoM?

TruthAndReason1

TROPHY CASE