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

[Anonymous]

You know, it's conceivable that a pro cyclist might believe so deeply in the power of, say, a rabbit's foot, that having that rabbit's foot in his jersey pocket could have a real and even measurable effect on his performance.

Would such a personal experience be evidence of the true power of the rabbit's foot?

"Personal experience" and anecdotal stories, not matter how real it seems, is not evidence.

No it is called "faith" for a reason.

 

[Anonymous]

OK, I read it again. top of page 77 hardback. "Implicit in De Ceaurriz's observation is the possibility that Armstrong's elevated beta-hCG level was picked up in the test but perhaps not reported by the laboratory, or if it was reported, maybe it was bever acted upon by the UCI"
Nowhere can I find Walsh suggest that a masking agent was used, nor does he discuss the existence of a masking agent for beta-hGC. There is no reason given for Armstrong dropping the issue. I interpreted that as Armstrong supporting the Omerta - and that the UCI was (and still is) complicit in the Omerta. And that is why he didn't take legal action - he takes legal action to prop up the Omerta, not to dismantle it.

Then it must have been on page 75, and I do not have the book handy, but the suggestion is implicit in what the scientist they discussed said. There is also the direct suggestion if memory serves me, and I will now have to go do some finding because it is there.

 

[Anonymous]

You know, it's conceivable that a pro cyclist might believe so deeply in the power of, say, a rabbit's foot, that having that rabbit's foot in his jersey pocket could have a real and even measurable effect on his performance.

Would such a personal experience be evidence of the true power of the rabbit's foot?

"Personal experience" and anecdotal stories, not matter how real it seems, is not evidence.

You are the one that needs the "evidence." I no longer do. Again, you lead your life based on your principles, but to suggest that belief in God is irrational is to suggest that the majority of inhabitants in the history of the world were "irrational" and that only the minority of atheists are "rational." I would suggest that in terms of the scientific method, that is illogical as measurable data suggest you are wrong.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Because I believe there is more in "existence" than the physical world and that the infinite is a concept much to large for any limited human mind.

Well, of course, concepts exist outside of the physical world. But, by definition, when we're talking about existence we're usually talking about physical existence. Otherwise how do we differentiate dragons and unicorns from lizards and horses? All four exist as concepts, but only the latter two physically exist (hopefully we agree on that). If you want to say that God exists only as a concept (like dragons and unicorns, and the effectiveness of a rabbit's foot on luck), we can certainly agree on that.

The infinite is a concept too large for any limited human mind... so what?
Multiplication is a concept too large for the even more limited canine mind.

I believe we are given complete and total free will as was the "universe." I believe we can cede our will, and ask for guidance and that we will indeed receive such guidance so long as we are open and willing. However I also believe there is no requirement to do so.

The "universe" has "free will"?
If God exists, in a universe in which innocent and even God-fearing people are regularly killed with abandon by natural disaster, disease, hunger, etc., why would he bother to give you, or anyone else, "guidance"? That's quite the narcissistic perspective, isn't it? How do you distinguish the sense of receiving such "guidance" from being believing in the effectiveness of a rabbit's foot?

Numbers are nonsensical in the realm of the infinite, but I bet you believe in them? Tell me, why do you believe in a concept that a singular exists when clearly anything with mass can only be made of something with mass and therefore is inherently divisible? I don't believe in numbers because they cannot be proven to exist in a theoretical realm.

This makes no sense. Numbers exist only in a theoretical realm. A "number" is a man-made concept. Like "God".

 

[Parrot23]

Need a new thread, guys.

Space and time (thus causality) are an aspect of the Big Bang, that is, they are created. They don't exist before the Big Bang. Einstein helped show this.

There is no space and time and thus no "logical" causality (IN OUR time-based view, that A...B....C) before the Big Bang. By that I mean logical causality or sequence IN OUR SENSE where we would have to say that something else also had to create God first (ie. an infinite regress of cause and effect, where something always creates something else like a bottomless pit, never ending). That sort of causality is part of space and time only, AFTER the Big Bang. What is before that (outside of space and time) and how it works, we can't understand. Once you get to the edge of the Big Bang, the A...B...C question is not answerable with our way of thinking (science/sequence etc.), because it implies a sequence in time (and space), which don't exist. That is where faith comes in.

God must be outside our circle of causality/universe (outside of space/time sequences), and not subject to them. He is outside the universe of space and time. Some higher dimension. Always been the church's view, as has creation out of nothing from Genesis (the Jews got it right and were the only ones in the ancient world to think this: it took till this century to prove it, Hubble and a Catholic priest mathematician, Lemaitre, who convinced Einstein of this, etc.).

These things are mysterious, a bit like a Cray computer trying to run on rice crispies as the operating language.

The clincher for me is that reality is mathematical. Quantum physics (the best and most accurate science; the greatest achievement of the human mind) is pure idealized math where the smallest subunits of reality fit numbers exactly. Why should reality be like a math equation, granular, fitting whole numbers? It should really be random and chaotic or just a big nothing, a big fudge. It's not. It's totally finetuned and mathematical.

NB: mathematics fitting the physical world is not a placebo effect (like a rabbit's foot), but something pre-existing and a priori. It does not depend on our minds. A very rough analogy: VO2 max does not depend on your psychological state at the moment: it is set largely by genes, after being trained a bit. It's a priori.

But there's also freedom for us. That's another question.

Any way, nuff said. I REALLY apologize if I've offended anyone. This is not the place for this.

 

[Parrot23]

Perhaps men are not created to race bikes then...

Ha, ha, ha. It's a wonderful special creation of a human kind, LOL>

 

[Anonymous]

You know, it's conceivable that a pro cyclist might believe so deeply in the power of, say, a rabbit's foot, that having that rabbit's foot in his jersey pocket could have a real and even measurable effect on his performance.

Would such a personal experience be evidence of the true power of the rabbit's foot?

"Personal experience" and anecdotal stories, not matter how real it seems, is not evidence.

See, you believe the validity of your existence is greater because you have determined that everyone else needs the same "evidence" that would sway you to believe, and I did not. We have never shared a pair of shoes, and while I do not pretend to judge how your life should or should not be led, you seem to believe that your answer is applicable to all. It isn't.

 

[byu123]

"Personal experience" and anecdotal stories, not matter how real it seems, is not evidence.

Ninety5rpm . . . give us all some "evidence" that you love your spouse, or love your children, or your parents, etc. Take your closest "loved one" in life and give us "evidence" and "prove" to us you actually in fact "love them" as you profess.

Of course you love them. The love you feel for them is very tangible and real. It is something clearly and deeply felt as a result of your "personal experiences" with them in life. But . . . I defy you to produce a scintilla of "evidence" that you in fact "love them."

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Ninety5rpm . . . give us all some "evidence" that you love your spouse, or love your children, or your parents, etc. Take your closest "loved one" in life and give us "evidence" and "prove" to us you actually in fact "love them" as you profess.

Of course you love them. The love you feel for them is very tangible and real. It is something clearly and deeply felt as a result of your "personal experiences" with them in life. But . . . I defy you to produce a scintilla of "evidence" that you in fact "love them."

Define "love" and I will provide the evidence accordingly. Without a definition of love, your challenge is nothing but a semantic quagmire.

 

[Anonymous]

This makes no sense. Numbers exist only in a theoretical realm. A "number" is a man-made concept. Like "God".

Thank you, you are correct. Now follow that to its logical conclusion. Without quantification, science is useless, therefore your entire argument is based on faith in a human concept. Why is your faith so greater than mine?

 

[Anonymous]

Define "love" and I will provide the evidence accordingly. Without a definition of love, we have nothing but a semantic quagmire.

That would be up to you to do as it is completely subjective, yet you seem to believe in it?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

No it is called "faith" for a reason.

Actually, it's called "blind faith" for a reason, and that's why it's such a big problem. It implies that believing in something to be true, without evidence, is normal.

That's not to say that we should discount hunches and intuition. We should follow those and see where they lead, to be sure. But seeing where they lead means gathering evidence. There is nothing morally good in glorifying the practice of concluding that something is true in the absence of evidence - and that, in a nutshell, is why belief in supernatural truth (that cannot be proven to be true by definition) is at the root of much evil.

 

[byu123]

"Thoughtforfood;32806]That would be up to you to do as it is completely subjective, yet you seem to believe in it?"

+1

 

[Anonymous]

The "universe" has "free will"?
If God exists, in a universe in which innocent and even God-fearing people are regularly killed with abandon by natural disaster, disease, hunger, etc., why would he bother to give you, or anyone else, "guidance"? That's quite the narcissistic perspective, isn't it? How do you distinguish the sense of receiving such "guidance" from being believing in the effectiveness of a rabbit's foot?

That is because you believe death is the end, and is therefore a negative thing. I do not.

Why does he give guidance? Because he is asked for it.

Because I have relied on many things for guidance, and the greatest of those is God.

As for definition of "love"." I believe it to be to give without requiring anything in return. That is also an inherent part of the gift of free will. God loves us so much that he gave us complete free will.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

That would be up to you to do as it is completely subjective, yet you seem to believe in it?

I am willing to accept the challenge given any objective/measurable definition of love. Or, I can offer my own. Either way, the challenge, without defining love, is pointless.

 

[byu123]

I am willing to accept the challenge given any objective/measurable definition of love. Or, I can offer my own. Either way, the challenge, without defining love, is pointless.

Define "Love" = "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." - Bill Clinton

 

[Ninety5rpm]

That is because you believe death is the end, and is therefore a negative thing. I do not.

Why does he give guidance? Because he is asked for it.

Because I have relied on many things for guidance, and the greatest of those is God.

As for definition of "love"." I believe it to be to give without requiring anything in return. That is also an inherent part of the gift of free will. God loves us so much that he gave us complete free will.

This reasoning reminds me of that of that schizophrenic mom in Texas who drowned each of her four (or five?) kids. After all, they were going to be with God... a good thing! Schizophrenic or not, she did reach a logical conclusion from the same fundamental beliefs you are espousing here.

She asked for guidance, and that's what she got. Who are we to argue with God?

 

[Parrot23]

Tom Sawyer "loves" a freckled girl in the back of the class, one with pigtails.

It has to be taken by faith: to explain it with science, that is based on body chemicals, reducing everything down to a chemical soup, would be an absurdly inadequate explanation. Just as explaining the Mona Lisa by paint pigmentation would be absurd. Laughable. Makes no sense, but that would be the scientific explanation.

But Tom's attraction is valid and true. Just not scientifically, logically explainable. So the "heart/faith have reasons that the head does not understand". Their reason in this case are superior to that of "science". They provide a far superior explanation.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Define "Love" = "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." - Bill Clinton

How about, "love is valuing the interests of another as your own"?

 

[Anonymous]

Actually, it's called "blind faith" for a reason, and that's why it's such a big problem. It implies that believing in something to be true, without evidence, is normal.

There is no such faith as "blind faith" because if faith requires proof then it doesn't exist as a concept. You seem to misunderstand the concept.

Believing something to be true, without evidence is "normal" as atheism is only present in the minority of humans on the planet who exist and ever have existed.

That's not to say that we should discount hunches and intuition. We should follow those and see where they lead, to be sure. But seeing where they lead means gathering evidence. There is nothing morally good in glorifying the practice of concluding that something is true in the absence of evidence - and that, in a nutshell, is why belief in supernatural truth (that cannot be proven to be true by definition) is at the root of much evil.

In my life, there has been plenty of evidence, but God has never come down and appeared to me. So if that is what you require, then I cannot relate a story that will fulfill your need.

Stalin was an atheist. He was also the root of much evil.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Tom Sawyer "loves" a freckled girl in the back of the class, one with pigtails.

It has to be taken by faith: to explain it with science, that is based on body chemicals, reducing everything down to a chemical soup, would be an absurdly inadequate explanation. Just as explaining the Mona Lisa by paint pigmentation would be absurd. Laughable. Makes no sense, but that would be the scientific explanation.

But Tom's attraction is valid and true. Just not scientifically, logically explainable. So the "heart/faith have reasons that the head does not understand". Their reason is this case are superior to that of "science". They provide a far superior explanation.

That's not love. That's infatuation. Please!

 

[Parrot23]

How about, "love is valuing the interests of another as your own"?

Yes, called the golden rule, LOL. Sounds like Jesus. Also equivalent to the law of energy conservation. But agape, the love spoken of by Jesus, is self-sacrificing love (like the cross, or someone pulling for another at cost). Sound familiar? Or taking a bullet for a friend, as per BYU on foxholes. That's love. It's real because it costs. Sound familiar? Like energy costs.

Armstrong deciding to pull for Contador, even though he thinks he could, and WOULD, win if he didn't. He sacrifices his own interests for those of another (not because he can't win, but because he decides not to win in order for another to win). That's love. It's communitarian--a team sport. There are analogies with cycling.

Love can be any form of attraction or self-sacrifice in the interests of another (reciprocal if it's a lower form, and self-sacrificing/heroic as the highest form, IF it's for the good of another).

 

[byu123]

Tom Sawyer "loves" a freckled girl in the back of the class, one with pigtails.

It has to be taken by faith: to explain it with science, that is based on body chemicals, reducing everything down to a chemical soup, would be an absurdly inadequate explanation. Just as explaining the Mona Lisa by paint pigmentation would be absurd. Laughable. Makes no sense, but that would be the scientific explanation.

But Tom's attraction is valid and true. Just not scientifically, logically explainable. So the "heart/faith have reasons that the head does not understand". Their reason is this case are superior to that of "science". They provide a far superior explanation.

Well said . . . now gentelmen . . . coming full circle . . . and in an attempt to save a fairly decent threat . . . didn't Tom Sawyer ride a bike? And if he had lived in 2008, trained with Contador and/or Armstrong and engaged in autologous blood doping but not EPO, Could Tom Sawyer win stage 20 up Mt. Ventoux???? And is the girl with "pig tails" which Tom had the crush on hot enough to be a podium girl in this years Tour????

 

[Anonymous]

This reasoning reminds me of that of that schizophrenic mom in Texas who drowned each of her four (or five?) kids. After all, they were going to be with God... a good thing! Schizophrenic or not, she did reach a logical conclusion from the same fundamental beliefs you are espousing here.

She asked for guidance, and that's what she got. Who are we to argue with God?

Stalin killed more people than that based only on reason. Why is he so greater than she?

I will grant you this, mental illness is one thing for which I do not have an answer. I can find no logical reasoning behind it in the known universe for which I believe. At the same time, I cannot discount what I have experienced in my faith. Sorry, I don't have the answer to that one, but only you require one.

 

[Anonymous]

Tom Sawyer "loves" a freckled girl in the back of the class, one with pigtails.

It has to be taken by faith: to explain it with science, that is based on body chemicals, reducing everything down to a chemical soup, would be an absurdly inadequate explanation. Just as explaining the Mona Lisa by paint pigmentation would be absurd. Laughable. Makes no sense, but that would be the scientific explanation.

But Tom's attraction is valid and true. Just not scientifically, logically explainable. So the "heart/faith have reasons that the head does not understand". Their reason is this case are superior to that of "science". They provide a far superior explanation.

Beautiful post.

Yet another reason I believe in a soul. I cannot adequately explain the cognitive ability I have in just the composition of their various chemical reactions. There is something more between them and the view from my eyes.