The Philosophy of Faith versus Science – Lance and PEDs

[Phil H]

It may be an oversimplification but the schools of thought appear IMO
to fall into one of the two subject categories. There are those whose
reality is faith based and those whose reality is based on scientific
evidence.

As individuals we may have suspicions about whether an athlete doped
or not; the difference is, one group has very different standards of
proof when it comes to deciding whether something is true or not. What
are examples of the indicators used to determine the reality of the
faith based group?

Hearsay – he said/she said.
Unprovable accusations – from disgruntled employees, teammates etc.
Unreliable testing – a claim of never testing positive is twisted
around and used as supporting evidence of guilt.
Rogue testing – illegally or unofficially obtained results.
Guilt by association – other team members caught later.
Insufficient Reasons – aka railroaded by retards (RBR). Lance was born
when jupiter aligned with mars on the eleventh vernal equinox 17 days
after lent therefore he must be a doper.
Immediate Decision – We aren’t going to wait to collect and review all
of the evidence we’ll rule on what just showed up while emotions are
high.
Argument Winning - rather than Truth Seeking
Limited Possibility Fallacy - Anyone who thinks Lance didn’t dope is
either naive or stupid

The whole issue of concluding that Lance is a doper is missing one
single piece of hard irrefutable scientific evidence. That’s exactly
the same for any other cyclist. The faith based group loves to create
gray clouds of suspicion but as far as the science goes, the issue is
simply black or white.

Phil H

[Anton Berlin]

Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. He has
tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.

Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
less about faith and more about denial and delusion.

As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
a higher power.

However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
and morally weak believe in them.

[B. Lafferty[_3_]]

On 6/30/2010 6:37 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:
> Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. He has
> tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>
> Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
> less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
>
> As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
> problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
> a higher power.
>
> However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
> unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
> constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
> and morally weak believe in them.
>

Think Unitarian Universalist where all of your answers are questioned. :-)

[Anton Berlin]

On Jun 30, 5:43*pm, "B. Lafferty" > wrote:
> On 6/30/2010 6:37 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:
>
> > Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. *He has
> > tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>
> > Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
> > less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
>
> > As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
> > problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
> > a higher power.
>
> > However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
> > unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
> > constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
> > and morally weak believe in them.
>
> Think Unitarian Universalist where all of your answers are questioned. :-)

Yeah, those "there's more than one path to the mountain top" are the
most annoying ****ers of all

[rickhopkins]

On Jun 30, 3:48*pm, Anton Berlin > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 5:43*pm, "B. Lafferty" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6/30/2010 6:37 PM, Anton Berlin wrote:
>
> > > Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. *He has
> > > tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>
> > > Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
> > > less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
>
> > > As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
> > > problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
> > > a higher power.
>
> > > However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
> > > unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
> > > constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
> > > and morally weak believe in them.
>
> > Think Unitarian Universalist where all of your answers are questioned. :-)
>
> Yeah, those "there's more than one path to the mountain top" are the
> most annoying ****ers of all

Unitarian Universalist - aren't they the ones that burn a "?" on your
lawn.

[Brad Anders]

On Jun 30, 3:37*pm, Anton Berlin > wrote:
> Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. *He has
> tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.

While I am not in the "Lance is clean" camp, none of the positive test
results you mention resulted in any form of sanctions against him. Not
even a slap on the wrist. Plus, despite being specifically targeted
for testing, he's passed hundreds of drug tests since his comeback.

If he's one of the worst dopers in the peloton as you say, then you've
got to admit that drug testing is a complete fraud. The officials are
corrupt (i.e. the unpunished positives) and the tests don't work (i.e.
worst doper in the peloton always tests negative).

So, what's your solution? Do you advocate dropping drug testing, since
it seems worthless? Got a better suggestion? How do you recommend that
they catch Lance doping? 24x7x365 A/V surveillance? Or would you be
willing to be a hall monitor again and take on the job?

Brad Anders

[Anton Berlin]

On Jun 30, 6:15*pm, Brad Anders > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 3:37*pm, Anton Berlin > wrote:
>
> > Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. *He has
> > tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>
> While I am not in the "Lance is clean" camp, none of the positive test
> results you mention resulted in any form of sanctions against him. Not
> even a slap on the wrist. Plus, despite being specifically targeted
> for testing, he's passed hundreds of drug tests since his comeback.
>
> If he's one of the worst dopers in the peloton as you say, then you've
> got to admit that drug testing is a complete fraud. The officials are
> corrupt (i.e. the unpunished positives) and the tests don't work (i.e.
> worst doper in the peloton always tests negative).
>
> So, what's your solution? Do you advocate dropping drug testing, since
> it seems worthless? Got a better suggestion? How do you recommend that
> they catch Lance doping? 24x7x365 A/V surveillance? Or would you be
> willing to be a hall monitor again and take on the job?
>
> Brad Anders

Lance and dope are like these guys and cock - there's no such thing as
"sucking a little bit of dick".

http://blogs.citypages.com/dressingroom/2010/06/top_5_homophobe.php

[DA74]

On Jun 30, 4:15*pm, Brad Anders > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 3:37*pm, Anton Berlin > wrote:
>
> > Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. *He has
> > tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>
> While I am not in the "Lance is clean" camp, none of the positive test
> results you mention resulted in any form of sanctions against him. Not
> even a slap on the wrist. Plus, despite being specifically targeted
> for testing, he's passed hundreds of drug tests since his comeback.
>
> If he's one of the worst dopers in the peloton as you say, then you've
> got to admit that drug testing is a complete fraud. The officials are
> corrupt (i.e. the unpunished positives) and the tests don't work (i.e.
> worst doper in the peloton always tests negative).
>
> So, what's your solution? Do you advocate dropping drug testing, since
> it seems worthless? Got a better suggestion? How do you recommend that
> they catch Lance doping? 24x7x365 A/V surveillance? Or would you be
> willing to be a hall monitor again and take on the job?
>
> Brad Anders

Bradford,
There is no solution so stop looking for one. We're just talking about
facts here. Relax and while you're at it would you please wipe that
single-malt spunk off your chin for christssake.
Durex94

[DA74]

On Jun 30, 3:37*pm, Anton Berlin > wrote:
> Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. *He has
> tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>
> Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
> less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
>
> As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
> problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
> a higher power.
>
> However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
> unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
> constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
> and morally weak believe in them.

This is a correct analysis.
DA74

[Henry[_4_]]

On Jul 1, 10:37*am, Anton Berlin > wrote:
> Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. *He has
> tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>
> Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
> less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
>
> As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
> problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
> a higher power.
>
> However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
> unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
> constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
> and morally weak believe in them.

you smoking crack(s) again ?

[Henry[_4_]]

On Jul 1, 11:15*am, Brad Anders > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 3:37*pm, Anton Berlin > wrote:
>
> > Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. *He has
> > tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>
> While I am not in the "Lance is clean" camp, none of the positive test
> results you mention resulted in any form of sanctions against him
what positive test results ?

[Brad Anders]

On Jun 30, 5:12*pm, Henry > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 11:15*am, Brad Anders > wrote:> On Jun 30, 3:37*pm, Anton Berlin > wrote:
>
> > > Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. *He has
> > > tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>
> > While I am not in the "Lance is clean" camp, none of the positive test
> > results you mention resulted in any form of sanctions against him
>
> what positive test results ?

Ask Anton.

Brad Anders

[Frederick the Great[_2_]]

In article
>,
Anton Berlin > wrote:

> Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. He has
> tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>
> Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
> less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
>
> As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
> problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
> a higher power.
>
> However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
> unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
> constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
> and morally weak believe in them.

Ever notice how the anti-religious are humorless
absolutists hunting for people to incinerate?

--
Old Fritz

[Anton Berlin]

On Jul 1, 1:18*pm, Frederick the Great > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Anton Berlin > wrote:
>
> > Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. *He has
> > tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>
> > Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
> > less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
>
> > As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
> > problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
> > a higher power.
>
> > However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
> > unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
> > constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
> > and morally weak believe in them.
>
> Ever notice how the anti-religious are humorless
> absolutists hunting for people to incinerate?
>
> --
> Old Fritz

What's funny about any of the top 10 atrocities (as an example)
performed and or hidden under the Vatican's watch?

[DA74]

On Jul 1, 11:18*am, Frederick the Great > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Anton Berlin > wrote:
>
> > Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. *He has
> > tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>
> > Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
> > less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
>
> > As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
> > problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
> > a higher power.
>
> > However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
> > unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
> > constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
> > and morally weak believe in them.
>
> Ever notice how the anti-religious are humorless
> absolutists hunting for people to incinerate?
>
> --
> Old Fritz

Ever notice how the religious have successfully incinerated those who
dare ask questions throughout the centuries?

1200s: Christians burned the Waldenses heretics for questioning
ecclessiastical power
1300s: Christians burned the Jews of Cologne whom they blamed for the
Black Death (when in actuality it was the Christian's burning of the
"evil" cats that let rats proliferate and spread the plague. Ain't
irony great?)
1400s: Christians burned John Huss of Bohemia for talking about
corruption of the popes
1500s: Savonarola, Christian bookburner extraordinaire is himself
burned at the stake for critisizing the pope
1600s: John Calvin orders Dr. Servetus burned at the stake for
critisizing the holy trinity and infant baptism...
....and on and on and on....

[Frederick the Great[_2_]]

In article
>,
DA74 > wrote:

> On Jul 1, 11:18Â*am, Frederick the Great > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > Â*Anton Berlin > wrote:
> >
> > > Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. Â*He has
> > > tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
> >
> > > Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
> > > less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
> >
> > > As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
> > > problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
> > > a higher power.
> >
> > > However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
> > > unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
> > > constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
> > > and morally weak believe in them.
> >
> > Ever notice how the anti-religious are humorless
> > absolutists hunting for people to incinerate?
>
> Ever notice how the religious have successfully incinerated those who
> dare ask questions throughout the centuries?

Well spotted! I made an oblique reference to
religious persecutions, and you picked out in a trice.

--
Old Fritz

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
Anton Berlin > wrote:

> On Jul 1, 1:18Â*pm, Frederick the Great > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > Â*Anton Berlin > wrote:
> >
> > > Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. Â*He has
> > > tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
> >
> > > Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
> > > less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
> >
> > > As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
> > > problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
> > > a higher power.
> >
> > > However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
> > > unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
> > > constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
> > > and morally weak believe in them.
> >
> > Ever notice how the anti-religious are humorless
> > absolutists hunting for people to incinerate?
>
> What's funny about any of the top 10 atrocities (as an example)
> performed and or hidden under the Vatican's watch?

Are you going for body count?
Can we settle this with numbers?
Add them up.

Anti-religious Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili
Anti-religious Mao Tse Tung
Anti-religious Adolf Hitler

I win.

--
Michael Press

[Ningi[_2_]]

On 01/07/2010 22:13, Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Anton > wrote:
>
>> On Jul 1, 1:18 pm, Frederick the > wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> Anton > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. He has
>>>> tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>>>
>>>> Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
>>>> less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
>>>
>>>> As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
>>>> problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
>>>> a higher power.
>>>
>>>> However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
>>>> unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
>>>> constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
>>>> and morally weak believe in them.
>>>
>>> Ever notice how the anti-religious are humorless
>>> absolutists hunting for people to incinerate?
>>
>> What's funny about any of the top 10 atrocities (as an example)
>> performed and or hidden under the Vatican's watch?
>
> Are you going for body count?
> Can we settle this with numbers?
> Add them up.
>
> Anti-religious Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili
> Anti-religious Mao Tse Tung
> Anti-religious Adolf Hitler
>
> I win.
>

You appear confused about Hitler.

That's a polite way of saying you are wrong.

Pete

[K. Fred Gauss[_6_]]

Anton Berlin wrote:
> On Jul 1, 1:18 pm, Frederick the Great > wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>> Anton Berlin > wrote:
>>
>>> Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. He has
>>> tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>>> Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
>>> less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
>>> As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
>>> problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
>>> a higher power.
>>> However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
>>> unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
>>> constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
>>> and morally weak believe in them.
>> Ever notice how the anti-religious are humorless
>> absolutists hunting for people to incinerate?
>>
>> --
>> Old Fritz
>
> What's funny about any of the top 10 atrocities (as an example)
> performed and or hidden under the Vatican's watch?

Not a Monty Python fan?

[K. Fred Gauss[_6_]]

Ningi wrote:
> On 01/07/2010 22:13, Michael Press wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>> Anton > wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 1:18 pm, Frederick the > wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> >,
>>>> Anton > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. He has
>>>>> tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>>>>
>>>>> Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
>>>>> less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
>>>>
>>>>> As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
>>>>> problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
>>>>> a higher power.
>>>>
>>>>> However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
>>>>> unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
>>>>> constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
>>>>> and morally weak believe in them.
>>>>
>>>> Ever notice how the anti-religious are humorless
>>>> absolutists hunting for people to incinerate?
>>>
>>> What's funny about any of the top 10 atrocities (as an example)
>>> performed and or hidden under the Vatican's watch?
>>
>> Are you going for body count?
>> Can we settle this with numbers?
>> Add them up.
>>
>> Anti-religious Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili
>> Anti-religious Mao Tse Tung
>> Anti-religious Adolf Hitler
>>
>> I win.
>>
>
> You appear confused about Hitler.
>
> That's a polite way of saying you are wrong.

The accounting here is not so straightforward. Many people are
conveniently religious. Ronald Reagan and Adolf Hitler are clear
examples of that.

[Michael Press]

In article <fU8Xn.140654$Hs4.34464@hurricane>,
Ningi > wrote:

> On 01/07/2010 22:13, Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > Anton > wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 1, 1:18 pm, Frederick the > wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> >,
> >>> Anton > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. He has
> >>>> tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
> >>>
> >>>> Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
> >>>> less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
> >>>
> >>>> As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
> >>>> problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
> >>>> a higher power.
> >>>
> >>>> However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
> >>>> unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
> >>>> constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
> >>>> and morally weak believe in them.
> >>>
> >>> Ever notice how the anti-religious are humorless
> >>> absolutists hunting for people to incinerate?
> >>
> >> What's funny about any of the top 10 atrocities (as an example)
> >> performed and or hidden under the Vatican's watch?
> >
> > Are you going for body count?
> > Can we settle this with numbers?
> > Add them up.
> >
> > Anti-religious Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili
> > Anti-religious Mao Tse Tung
> > Anti-religious Adolf Hitler
> >
> > I win.
> >
>
> You appear confused about Hitler.
>
> That's a polite way of saying you are wrong.

How is it church membership declined during the Third Reich?

--
Michael Press

[Ningi[_2_]]

On 02/07/2010 07:53, Michael Press wrote:
> In article<fU8Xn.140654$Hs4.34464@hurricane>,
> > wrote:
>
>> On 01/07/2010 22:13, Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> Anton > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 1, 1:18 pm, Frederick the > wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >,
>>>>> Anton > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil - the 'faith based' are all on the "Lance is clean" camp. He has
>>>>>> tested positive for both 'at that time' and retroactive tests.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Those irrefutable facts, by themselves, make the "Lance is clean" camp
>>>>>> less about faith and more about denial and delusion.
>>>>>
>>>>>> As an agnostic non-theist (the only rational POV IMHO) I have no
>>>>>> problem admitting that "I don't know" or "can't know" when it comes to
>>>>>> a higher power.
>>>>>
>>>>>> However, when it comes to the Bible and Lance Armstrong, I can
>>>>>> unequivocally say that they are both full of **** and regurgitate a
>>>>>> constant stream of lies and only self-deceiving fools and the mentally
>>>>>> and morally weak believe in them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ever notice how the anti-religious are humorless
>>>>> absolutists hunting for people to incinerate?
>>>>
>>>> What's funny about any of the top 10 atrocities (as an example)
>>>> performed and or hidden under the Vatican's watch?
>>>
>>> Are you going for body count?
>>> Can we settle this with numbers?
>>> Add them up.
>>>
>>> Anti-religious Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili
>>> Anti-religious Mao Tse Tung
>>> Anti-religious Adolf Hitler
>>>
>>> I win.
>>>
>>
>> You appear confused about Hitler.
>>
>> That's a polite way of saying you are wrong.
>
> How is it church membership declined during the Third Reich?

Because fewer people went to church? Maybe they raised the church taxes
and people decided to save some money.

Hitler certainly pretended to be Christian and used religion as
justification for lots of stuff. Trying to second guess what goes on in
the mind of a psychopath isn't easy so you have to go by what they say.

Pete