Armstrong wins because he trains harder/smarter . . . not doping

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Thoughtforfood said:
Again, using numbers as the only basis for quantification and therefore the only real tool for proof of anything, you are still far in the minority and to suggest that atheism will ever be anything but a minority is ignorant of human anthropology and written human history. That is just a fact.
I still don't understand your point.

Even if one accepts that it is a fact that atheism will never be anything but a minority (for which I don't know of any reason to do, but the for the sake of argument let's run with it...) - do you consider that to be a reason not to be an atheist?
 
Mar 11, 2009
124
1
0
Ninety5rpm said:
Okay, fair enough, but why focus on Lance? Why hate him in particular? If what you say and quote is all true, then the entire sport is infested with doping (and I believe it is). All Lance did was play the game better than the others.

Was the sport really better with him gone, given all the other fiascos since then (Hamilton, Flandis, Vino, Ullrich, Basso, etc. etc.)? Does anyone remember who even won last year, much less got 2nd or 3rd? Interest in the sport -- and not only in the U.S. -- is much higher now that he is back. And he is no where near as likely to win as he was in those old "boring" days - so what's your beef now?

And what is this "hate" all about anyway? I don't know or care whether he would make a good friend or not. The dude is entertaining as all get out. He is the Michael Jackson of cycling -- the King of Pop Cycling if you will. Armstrong is as good for cycling and the cycling industry as Jackson was for music and the music industry.
Okay, fair enough, but why focus on Lance? Why hate him in particular?
1.Because, as so well put by pmcg76, he STOLE something, he has not returned it, and yet comes back again to smugly flaunt it.

Was the sport really better with him gone, given all the other fiascos since then (Hamilton, Flandis, Vino, Ullrich, Basso, etc. etc.)?
2.They should all be gone, they are all from same era – penalties/years ban should far greater.

Does anyone remember who even won last year, much less got 2nd or 3rd?
3.My point exactly, LANCE the Human Logo has eclipsed your interest in cycling – does the Tour only exist when LA wins it?

Interest in the sport -- and not only in the U.S. -- is much higher now that he is back. And he is no where near as likely to win as he was in those old "boring" days - so what's your beef now?
4.Gossip magazine interest, don’t see any Soccer Mums putting on Livestrong Singlets around here….

And what is this "hate" all about anyway?
5. Agree, don’t agree with “hate”….more lets keep some perspective, he has a PR machine that does the best job ever. I guess the believers whom feel ripped off are tired of the LA’s “believe the dream” rhetoric.

I don't know or care whether he would make a good friend or not. The dude is entertaining as all get out. He is the Michael Jackson of cycling -- the King of Pop Cycling if you will. Armstrong is as good for cycling and the cycling industry as Jackson was for music and the music industry.

6. Again, point pmcg76 made – it was boring when he retired and it had begun to smell
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ninety5rpm said:
I still don't understand your point.

Even if one accepts that it is a fact that atheism will never be anything but a minority (for which I don't know of any reason to do... bot the for the sake of argument) - do you consider that to be a reason not to be an atheist?
No, I consider that your assertion that somehow you hold the "normal" and "logical" high ground is not reflective of the evidence gained by studying the entirety of human belief.

Aren't you a science guy?

And again, I know you want to parse words, but all faith has the element of the unprovable. All of it. You simply do not fully understand the concept so you use the term "blind faith" to make a point, but it still doesn't change the character of "faith."
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Ninety5rpm said:
Really? I'm almost as certain that Armstrong has doped, at least using homologous blood doping, for his entire tdf career, as I'm about there being no gods, and for essentially the same reason - any plausible alternative explanation seems preposterous.
IT WORKED!!!! Anything to get us back on cycling. I thought that might grab your attention and illicit a response . . . . :) Opinions on the "Dark Horse" ????
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Look, we won't agree, and I can assure you that you will say nothing that will alter my beliefs. I have been over this and over this with many atheists, and you have provided nothing I have not heard before.

I told you in my first post that I can go on and on. Now I will stop because we are not arguing from a shared understanding and therefore will always be talking past each other. I have better things to do as I am sure you do also.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Look, we won't agree, and I can assure you that you will say nothing that will alter my beliefs. I have been over this and over this with many atheists, and you have provided nothing I have not heard before.

I told you in my first post that I can go on and on. Now I will stop because we are not arguing from a shared understanding and therefore will always be talking past each other. I have better things to do as I am sure you do also.
Yeah! Like respond to BYU123's "Dark Horse" question.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster. . . just commanded that all "pie holes" talking religion on cycling forums must be shut!
 
Wait. I think we are almost at a point where we can agree to disagree. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just trying to understand your perspective.

Thoughtforfood said:
No, I consider that your assertion that somehow you hold the "normal" and "logical" high ground is not reflective of the evidence gained by studying the entirety of human belief.

Aren't you a science guy?
I don't believe I've explicitly asserted that atheism holds the "logical" high ground, but I suppose that's a reasonable implication to draw from what I have stated. Fair enough. But I know I have not stated nor even implied that atheism is more "normal"... not even sure what that would mean.

At any rate, I don't see how the study of human belief would be relevant to the determination of whether atheism is more or less logical than theism.

Thoughtforfood said:
And again, I know you want to parse words, but all faith has the element of the unprovable. All of it. You simply do not fully understand the concept so you use the term "blind faith" to make a point, but it still doesn't change the character of "faith."
This is not a false dichotomy. Yes, very little in the real world is "provable" absolutely, but there is an enormous night and day distinction between faith based on probabilities and reasonable estimates of likelihoods derived from verifiable objective evidence, and the kind of completely blind faith entailed by belief in the existence of supernatural entities.

I suggest that a major problem created by widespread belief in god is the conflation of these two entirely different kinds of faith, and how it inhibits the development of a keen understanding and appreciation for faith based on verifiable objective evidence.
 
Ninety5rpm said:
The underlying problem is blind faith -- faith not supported by objectively verifiable evidence -- whether it leads to evil behavior or not.
The notion of Faith itself, which is irrational, has no need for "objectively verifiable evidence" ( which is a rationalist approach) and "legitimizes" itself by its very existence from the point of view of those who claim to have it. Faith claims to partake of a superior and priviledged reality and to be informed by an absolute Truth, as against the imperfect comprehension of the rationalists, which thus can't be disproven, or even refuted, by their rational arguments. Otherwise it wouldn't be Faith

Man is simply a coward who can't accept his own mortality and, therefore, needs to believe in irrational things for comfort. And this has led a great part of humanity throughout history to believe in the most absurd things in the name of Faith and, in the worst cases, commit the most heinous crimes under its influence.

Naturally Faith goes beyond the mere religious sphere (allthough this is where it began anthropologically speaking) and into the ideological, as well as social aspects of human existence.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
rhubroma said:
The notion of Faith itself, which is irrational, has no need for "objectively verifiable evidence" ( which is a rationalist approach) and "legitimizes" itself by its very existence from the point of view of those who claim to have it. Faith claims to partake of a superior and priviledged reality and to be informed by an absolute Truth, as against the imperfect comprehension of the rationalists, which thus can't be disproven, or even refuted, by their rational arguments. Otherwise it wouldn't be Faith

Man is simply a coward who can't accept his own mortality and, therefore, needs to believe in irrational things for comfort. And this has led a great part of humanity throughout history to believe in the most absurd things in the name of Faith and, in the worst cases, commit the most heinous crimes under its influence.

Naturally Faith goes beyond the mere religious sphere (allthough this is where it began anthropologically speaking) and into the ideological, as well as social aspects of human existence.
Sure . . . "and these are not the droids your looking for . . . . [imagine slow sweep of the hand]"

The absurdity of someone with no faith or belief whatsoever (Athiest, etc.), insisting to a person of faith who has experienced it in a very real and personal way, that faith is not real . . . has always baffled and somewhat amused me.

Makes about as much sense as a vegetarian strenuously trying to convince a lion that meat doesn't taste good.
 
Captain Kirk said:
Okay, fair enough, but why focus on Lance? Why hate him in particular?
1.Because, as so well put by pmcg76, he STOLE something, he has not returned it, and yet comes back again to smugly flaunt it.
He stole victory from someone else who would have stolen it. So what?

Captain Kirk said:
Was the sport really better with him gone, given all the other fiascos since then (Hamilton, Flandis, Vino, Ullrich, Basso, etc. etc.)?
2.They should all be gone, they are all from same era – penalties/years ban should far greater.
Oh. You're a believer in the "era" theory? Sorry, I'm not. As long as human nature doesn't change - and that seems to happen only over thousands of years - humans are going to continue to take every advantage they can get away with taking. The best we can do is make it as hard as reasonably possible to get away with cheating - but we cannot deny their humanity. And don't forget, these creme de la creme athletes are driven by a zeal to win that is simply incomprehensible to most of us peons. Did you know that most top athletes would be willing to take something that they knew would kill them within two years, as long as they believed it would probably make them champion of their sport first? We can't even control the use of marijuana, cocaine and heroin among the public at large, among prisoners in confined quarters - if you think it's possible to keep these guys from doping, you must be partaking in some kind of contraband a little too much yourself! ;)

Captain Kirk said:
Does anyone remember who even won last year, much less got 2nd or 3rd?
3.My point exactly, LANCE the Human Logo has eclipsed your interest in cycling – does the Tour only exist when LA wins it?
While I remember who won and placed last year, I suggest most people don't. You can't blame Lance for that. You can and and arguably should credit him for them remembering when he won, and who he beat.

Captain Kirk said:
6. Again, point pmcg76 made – it was boring when he retired and it had begun to smell
A subjective point. And I think judging from website hits and Versus potential revenue this year vs. last year, I think you're in a tiny minority when it comes to thinking that with Lance back it is more boring.
 
pmcg76 said:
You really, really dont have a clue, I am betting the majority of posters on here started out as Lance fans and morphed into haters or dissenters. I will give you a personal breakdown of how I went from fan to foe and I am sure most are pretty similar.

My own awareness of Lance goes back to 1990 when he competed in the Worlds Amateur race in Japan. I then followed his progress through the pages of Winning magazine(in which he had a column thru 1993), I remember him winning races your average Lance fan dont know jack about.

He was definitely the up and coming English speaking superstar and I was a big fan, he was good from the moment he turned pro, winning USPROS, TDF stage and Worlds in his first full season, everyone including fellow pros thought he would be king of the classics, not a Tour winner. His career never took of the way many expected however, even in 1996, he admitted to the late Rich Carlson(Winning) he would never be a Tour contender.

When he came back from cancer to win the Tour, I was as happy as anybody but I was really surprised how he dominated in mountains especially. The Festina affair had happened in 1998 so long term fans were no longer innocent lambs to what happened in pro cycling. I gave Lance the benefit of doubt and believed all the theories, weight loss etc, and kinda ignored the incident with Bassons.

I bought a Trek bike, US Postal jersey, raincape etc so definitely not anti-Lance. On all the allegations, I observed proceedings but witheld judgement. The Ferrai connection was a big question mark however, I knew of Ferrari being a doping doctor as far back as 93. As time progressed and doping was still obviously widespread in cycling, I wanted Lance as the top guy to take a firm stance but he just buried his head. This frustrated me as did his continuing dominace of the Tour, it was becoming boring and predictable, I think this is natural in sport when one team or person dominates totally.

Then the spat with Simeoni in 04 finally put me into the anti-Lance camp, how could he do that to a guy who was helping to bring down the most famous doping linked doctor in cycling. His attitude was so wrong I was so happy he retired and then the 99 retested samples. I wasnt surprised but didnt get into it too much, I was just happy he was gone. What happened in the intervening years with Puerto, ex-teammates getting busted, all the little stories, it only confirmed what had been obvious to most longtime fans.

Disgusted when he announced his comeback as I knew it would be all about Lance again and it has, I know I am being hypocritical now but imagine how much better this forum would be if there was no Lance around, without all these Lance threads. Cycling does not need Lance, US cycling might but we were managing just fine without him.

My dislike of Lance is not based on some irrational jealousy, its based on over 20 years of observation in detail of cycling and using my logic to workout what is going on in the sport. I never needed anybody else to influence me on the Lance issue, he done it himself.

When you actually know something about cycling, then try and lecture us. I dont go on football sites and try to pass myself of as intelligble by saying Tom Brady is the greatest ever QB. Stick to what you know, and just watch as people recount similar stories on their own passage from Lance fan to hater.

Apologies for the length of this but needed to get it out.
Agreed on all your points.

I would sum it up though, also in terms of style and approach. Lance was/is an imperialist who has taken a corporate approach, with the help of Bruyneel, to fashion the sport to his own image and liking and in the process has annihilated pro cycling's great sense of romance and heroics. Not the banal heroics of an automaton thrashing everbody for seven years straight at the Tour (which involved the most scientific and cunning doping program ever), but that which used to leave a margin of error, of imperfection, in the preparation and excecution of the cycling game that made it so much more intriguinged to watch before his era.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
rhubroma said:
Agreed on all your points.

I would sum it up though, also in terms of style and approach. Lance was/is an imperialist who has taken a corporate approach, with the help of Bruyneel, to fashion the sport to his own image and liking and in the process has annihilated pro cycling's great sense of romance and heroics. Not the banal heroics of an automaton thrashing everbody for seven years straight at the Tour (which involved the most scientific and cunning doping program ever), but that which used to leave a margin of error, of imperfection, in the preparation and excecution of the cycling game that made it so much more intriguinged to watch before his era.
Yeah . . . and Tiger Woods ruined golf and Michael Jordan ruined basketball. They came along and were just too dominant mechanical and efficient. It was so much better, "heroic", and "romantic" when a bunch of average mopes were fighting it out to see who could be the king of the mediocre.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
byu123 said:
Yes. I'm so grateful to "Thoughtforfood" and "BroDeal." Last night I realized I learned nothing about the law after graduating with honors from a top 20 law school, clerking for a federal judge, practicing law for 4 years, passing two bar exams, and preparing cases for prosecution in federal court for the last 10 years. But I had the good fortune to came on this blog and have these two geniuses finally "school" me on legal procedure and correct all the false misunderstandings I learned in 17 years since I started law school.

Bloggings' great. The humor and amusement does me good. :)
Yep, that's pretty much what they do.

CN Experts.

Last time I used faint praise on one of them, they though it was a real compliment. LMAO
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
jackhammer111 said:
Yep, that's pretty much what they do.

CN Experts.

Last time I used faint praise on one of them, they though it was a real compliment. LMAO
:) . . . . . . . :eek:
 
rhubroma said:
The notion of Faith itself, which is irrational, has no need for "objectively verifiable evidence" ( which is a rationalist approach) and "legitimizes" itself by its very existence from the point of view of those who claim to have it. Faith claims to partake of a superior and priviledged reality and to be informed by an absolute Truth, as against the imperfect comprehension of the rationalists, which thus can't be disproven, or even refuted, by their rational arguments. Otherwise it wouldn't be Faith
Whenever you step on a bridge, you do not know for sure that it will not collapse and kill you when you are half way across. However, depending on the kind of evidence you can gather, you can estimate the likelihood of that happening, and choose whether to have faith in the integrity of that bridge. This is what I mean by faith based on objectively verifiable evidence. If it's a rotten termite infested wooden rickety bridge in the jungle, with much of the structure already destroyed by rot and whatnot, your faith in that bridge is likely to be shaky. If it's the Golden Gate Bridge with decades of stability and thousands of vehicles crossing it every day, your faith is likely to be relatively firm.

Faith in the existence of any supernatural entity, or for anything to be true for which there is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence, is something else entirely. And I , for one, have no use for it in my life, and I simply don't understand why others do. To me it seems to be a rationalization to believe in the irrational, no different than having faith in the "power" of a rabbit's foot to bring one good luck.

At any rate, the difference in these two kinds of faith is, again, enormous. And the tendency to conflate one with the other - to not appreciate the distinction between them - is one of the greatest harms (but not the only!) perpetuated by humans, and on humans, for which belief in the supernatural in general - and belief in "God" in particular - is responsible.

rhubroma said:
Man is simply a coward who can't accept his own mortality and, therefore, needs to believe in irrational things for comfort. And this has led a great part of humanity throughout history to believe in the most absurd things in the name of Faith and, in the worst cases, commit the most heinous crimes under its influence.

Naturally Faith goes beyond the mere religious sphere (allthough this is where it began anthropologically speaking) and into the ideological, as well as social aspects of human existence.
Amen.

I wonder... do people who believe in the immortality of the human soul believe in the existence of immortal souls in other beings? Dogs? Cats? Rats? Cockroaches? Poison oak? Amoeba? H1N1 microbes?
 
byu123 said:
Yeah . . . and Tiger Woods ruined golf and Michael Jordan ruined basketball. They came along and were just too dominant mechanical and efficient. It was so much better, "heroic", and "romantic" when a bunch of average mopes were fighting it out to see who could be the king of the mediocre.
:) Exactly.
 
Mar 11, 2009
124
1
0
Ninety5rpm said:
He stole victory from someone else who would have stolen it. So what?

Wrong again.....he stole belief from us, his fans.

Gotta run....actually gonna ride a bike now :eek:
 
byu123 said:
Sure . . . "and these are not the droids your looking for . . . . [imagine slow sweep of the hand]"

The absurdity of someone with no faith or belief whatsoever (Athiest, etc.), insisting to a person of faith who has experienced it in a very real and personal way, that faith is not real . . . has always baffled and somewhat amused me.

Makes about as much sense as a vegetarian strenuously trying to convince a lion that meat doesn't taste good.
Here you demonstrate a plain ignorance of history, for people of no faith have overwhelmingly been the ones victomized by those of faith, have been tortured, killed, repressed and silenced in its name. Whether it be faith of a religious or ideological nature it doesn't matter. Whereas we don't have even one example of a rationalist (one that truely lives up to this layman's philosophy and not some charlatan) to have persecuted anyone in the rationalist name, because he knows the limitations of his knowledge sphere and doesn't claim to possess "the Truth" by any means. He admits to his own knowledge limitations and doesn't try to pursade anyone of anything which he can't rationally explain, let alone deny someone's right to have faith. Not so vice versa. And this is certainly more healthy than the ruthless and undemocratic approach used by the various preachers and demogogues to force the masses into submission and complaince we have gotten in the past and present. Faith has often merely been a rather pathetic alibi to not have to live by ones own rational limitations, especially when it comes to safegaurding the power and priviledges of the religious and political institutions.

And how is it absurd to not believe in absurd things? That I really don't get.
 
Jun 26, 2009
276
1
0
rhubroma said:
Here you demonstrate a plain ignorance of history, for people of no faith have overwhelmingly been the ones victomized by those of faith, have been tortured, killed, repressed and silenced in its name. Whether it be faith of a religious or ideological nature it doesn't matter. Whereas we don't have even one example of a rationalist (one that truely lives up to this layman's philosophy and not some charlatan) to have persecuted anyone in the rationalist name, because he knows the limitations of his knowledge sphere and doesn't claim to possess "the Truth" by any means. He admits to his own knowledge limitations and doesn't try to pursade anyone of anything which he can't rationally explain, let alone deny someone's right to have faith. Not so vice versa. And this is certainly more healthy than the ruthless and undemocratic approach used by the various preachers and demogogues to force the masses into submission and complaince we have gotten in the past and present. Faith has often merely been a rather pathetic alibi to not have to live by ones own rational limitations, especially when it comes to safegaurding the power and priviledges of the religious and political institutions.

And how is it absurd to not believe in absurd things? That I really don't get.
I'm not saying, and would never say, what you believe or don't is absurd. The point I made was the absurdity of you strenuously trying to convince me, TTF, or any other person of faith that the faith they hold is irrational. Thus the "vegetarian seeking to convince the lion that meat doesn't taste good."

I undertand very well that if you haven't felt a witness of the Spirit regarding God's divinity and the sacrifice of his Son Jesus Christ for all mankind, you don't understand it and don't get it. Well I have felt it . . . it IS very real for me. As real as the Sun in the sky. You trying to convince me the Sun doesn't shine is no more absurd to me than you trying to convince me that God doesn't exist and faith is fool hardy. Your attempt to do so is what I find absurd but it doesn't bother me at all, which is why I want to get back to discussing cycling. I do not think your belief's are absurd.

Oh BTW . . . although I am not Mormon, my wife and her entire family is, and I am familiar with its doctrine/history. As far as tortured and killed over faith . . . how about right here in America some 150 years ago . . . innocent men, women, and children tortured and killed because of their faith. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun's_Mill_massacre)
 
byu123 said:
I'm not saying, and would never say, what you believe or don't is absurd. The point I made was the absurdity of you strenuously trying to convince me, TTF, or any other person of faith that the faith they hold is irrational. Thus the "vegetarian seeking to convince the lion that meat doesn't taste good."

I undertand very well that if you haven't felt a witness of the Spirit regarding God's divinity and the sacrifice of his Son Jesus Christ for all mankind, you don't understand it and don't get it. Well I have felt it . . . it IS very real for me. As real as the Sun in the sky. You trying to convince me the Sun doesn't shine is no more absurd to me than you trying to convince me that God doesn't exist and faith is fool hardy. Your attempt to do so is what I find absurd but it doesn't bother me at all, which is why I want to get back to discussing cycling. I do not think your belief's are absurd.
Faith, by it very nature, is irrational, or else they'd call it something else. At least since we haven't been living in the Dark Ages. And' you're creepy in my book.
 
byu123 said:
I undertand very well that if you haven't felt a witness of the Spirit regarding God's divinity and the sacrifice of his Son Jesus Christ for all mankind, you don't understand it and don't get it. Well I have felt it . . . it IS very real for me. As real as the Sun in the sky. You trying to convince me the Sun doesn't shine is no more absurd to me than you trying to convince me that God doesn't exist and faith is fool hardy.
Perfect.

I contend there is no way to distinguish the essence of what you're saying here form the essence of what the 9/11 terrorists believed. Therefore, to condemn one, you must condemn the other, and for the same identical reasons.

In order to accept and respect your "personal" beliefs in the existence of a supernatural being who communicates with you, I have to accept and respect the "personal" beliefs of the 9/11 terrorists in the existence of the supernatural being that communicates with them. I can't do the latter, so I can't do the former.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just explaining why I can't accept or respect what you believe about the supernatural, any more than you accept or respect (presumably - correct me if I'm wrong) what the 9/11 terrorists believed about the supernatural. It's all foolish, irrational, and potentially extremely dangerous and harmful to humanity. Therefore, it's immoral.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY