Padre Pio

[Laudate_Dominum]

Thanks for the clarification jkaands.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310739957' post='2267720']I don't think you're getting it.[/quote]Your responding to me, yeah I don't get it...[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310739957' post='2267720']A person on the previous page said: "[i]Oddly atheists aren't afraid of death and many believing Christians are... They [atheists] apparently had much less fear of death than believers.[/i]" and alluded to a study as the basis of this claim. Assuming that the link I've provided is the study in question I'm simply pointing out that this is not true. The paper is about [u]positive religious coping[/u] and not fear of death. I don't claim to know which group of people generally experiences greater fear of death. I only claim that the study in question does not support the assertions made on the previous page.[/quote]Which I wrote, "[i]Jkaand's argument is not clearly contradicted, but perhaps not clearly supported.[/i]"

Please read more carefully in the future.[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310739957' post='2267720']As I indicated before, I don't really have a position on which group experiences a stronger fear of death (how the hell would I know?) and I actually think it is a stupid tangent to this thread.[/quote]Never claimed you did.

Please read more carefully in the future.[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310739957' post='2267720']And by the way, the study says a lot more than that. But first, once again, the study isn't about fear of death and doesn't say anything directly about it, I don't expect that it would address and refute some asshat speculation about who is more prone to fear. My purpose was only to demonstrate that it doesn't support the claims made, which is important since that research was introduced as the basis of the claim in the first place. So yeah, it doesn't have to contradict a groundless claim, perhaps you don't understand burden of proof. (Incidentally, I think the paper does go against the fear claim but I'm really not interested in debating such a pointless topic, and certainly not with you.)[/quote]This I would call a jab and flamebait. But your right, your not debating, your complaining.

But burden of proof is not something I have seen you demonstrated competence with.[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310739957' post='2267720']Religion provides many people with a sense of hope in hopelessness and a stronger will to live. This wasn't a groundless counter-claim of mine, I was actually just summarizing the bloody paper.[/quote]Strawman, I never argued your claim was "[i]groundless[/i]".

Please read more carefully in the future.[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310739957' post='2267720']Now for some parody.[/quote]Good, you are better at jokes anyways.[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310739957' post='2267720']"Oddly white people aren't afraid of death and many black people are. In a well-known medical study involving patients dying of terminal cancer at the famous Dana Farber Cancer Center in Boston, those with dark skin wanted everything done to prolong their lives--intubation, ongoing chemotherapy, ICU, the works. Those that had white skin were much more willing to accept palliative care. They apparently had much less fear of death than blacks."


[url="http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/26/25/4131.full.pdf"]Racial and ethnic differences in advance care planning among patients with cancer: impact of terminal illness acknowledgment, religiousness, and treatment preferences.[/url]

[url="http://www.dana-farber.org/Newsroom/News-Releases/Black-patients-with-terminal-cancer-more-likely-to-choose-aggressive-care-at-end-of-life,-study-shows.aspx"]Black patients with terminal cancer more likely to choose aggressive care at end of life, study shows[/url]

Okay, maybe I went well beyond my claimed source in asserting that the disparity is explained by fear, but it doesn't contradict this idea!

"[i]In their initial interviews, black patients reported having a higher quality of life than their white counterparts and appeared [b]more at peace[/b], Trice said, which could be a factor in opting for a treatment plan aimed at extending life[/i]."

Oh well, I'm going to keep this absurd controversy alive at all costs until we have a complete downward spiral and the thread is closed. I'll win either way.[/quote] That wasn't parody, that was a random and irrelevant document dump.[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310739957' post='2267720']P.S. I don't really know what you're trying to do with the second half of your post.

"Religion does make a strong argument for an afterlife, and the fear of what unfaithfulness brings, so perhaps religious people do have more cause to be afraid."

Get real.[/quote] Why are you trolling this thread?

Because you have no fear of hell I suppose... [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310745261' post='2267753']I'm tired of waiting for replies. I hereby accept defeat. Stop pwning me.

I'm stupid. You're smart. I was wrong. You were right. You're the best. I'm the worst. You're very good-looking. I'm not attractive.[/quote]Really, why are you trolling? You apparently have issues with me that you are unwilling or unable to resolve, it's best to ignore me for your health and reputation. While I am disappointed in you, I don't demonize you. Maybe you should take your own advise: "[i]Get real.[/i]"

Edited July 15, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Lil Red]

Every time i am in a debate I shall henceforth always reply with ‘Please read more carefully in the future.'

[Nihil Obstat]

By the power vested in me by My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, I hereby award L_D over 9000 internetz. So shall it be written, so shall it be done.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk9ZWJEuL_4[/media]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1310746846' post='2267764']
Your responding to me, yeah I don't get it...[/quote]
I don't normally grammar nazi but enough is enough and I haven't seen Winchester lately. You are = you're, not your.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1310746846' post='2267764']Which I wrote, "[i]Jkaand's argument is not clearly contradicted, but perhaps not clearly supported.[/i]"

Please read more carefully in the future.[/quote]
Ducks spend more time in the air than geese. There was a study that showed this. Oh, wait, the study doesn't say anything about the air time of any birds. Hmm.
That's the point. Someone made a factual claim allegedly based on research and when I read the research I found it did not touch upon that claim; I was then compelled to share this information. If you don't understand that then I can't help you. I suppose you consider blanket statements without any evidence to be sound arguments? If jkaands wants to speculate about fear among various groups of people that doesn't bother me one bit (perhaps a new thread would be appropriate, Ash might want in on it), but all I'm doing here is rejecting the basis put forth for the speculation on page one. It isn't that complicated.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1310746846' post='2267764']Never claimed you did.

Please read more carefully in the future.[/quote]
How convenient. But I think you've missed the point of that entire explanation. Communication isn't happening here...

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1310746846' post='2267764']This I would call a jab and flamebait. But your right, your not debating, your complaining.

But burden of proof is not something I have seen you demonstrated competence with.[/quote]
You are mistaken here as well. And please, enlighten me, what burden of proof do I bear in this discussion? What discussion are you actually trying to have here?

1. jkaands asserted that Christians fear death more than atheists.
2. Zero evidence has been presented that substantiates this claim.
3. The alleged study that would support this claim actually does not.
4. If said study did not contradict jkaands' claim this would not make it any more credible.
5. In fact the study does cast doubt upon the claim.

Get it? That's my position here. People who are sincere and interested may choose to read the things I've posted and make up their own mind about it. That's all I'm doing here. I don't have some speculative idea that I've yet to substantiate. Just looking at the facts.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1310746846' post='2267764']Strawman, I never argued your claim was "[i]groundless[/i]".

Please read more carefully in the future.[/quote]
Again, I don't have a claim other than that the "Christians fear death and atheists don't" nonsense is not based on that study as was suggested on page one. There is no strawman fallacy in that line you've quoted, it's not even an argument, and I wasn't claiming that you put forth such a position. That entire line is a clarification of things already said. And you have the nerve to tell me to read you more carefully? smh.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1310746846' post='2267764']Good, you are better at jokes anyways. That wasn't parody, that was a random and irrelevant document dump. [/quote]
I'm sure others will see the obvious relevance of it (both the parody as such and the research that goes with it). The racial study actually has some interesting religious elements to it; quite pertinent. Not sure what your problem is.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1310746846' post='2267764']Why are you trolling this thread? Because you have no fear of hell I suppose... Really, why are you trolling? You apparently have issues with me that you are unwilling or unable to resolve, it's best to ignore me for your health and reputation. While I am disappointed in you, I don't demonize you. Maybe you should take your own advise: "[i]Get real.[/i]"
[/quote]
Project much?

Edited July 15, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310751969' post='2267810'][u]I don't normally grammar nazi[/u] but enough is enough and I haven't seen Winchester lately. You are = you're, not your.[/quote]Fail.[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310751969' post='2267810']Ducks spend more time in the air than geese. There was a study that showed this. Oh, wait, the study doesn't say anything about the air time of any birds. Hmm.
That's the point. Someone made a factual claim allegedly based on research and when I read the research I found it did not touch upon that claim; I was then compelled to share this information. If you don't understand that then I can't help you. I suppose you consider blanket statements without any evidence to be sound arguments? If jkaands wants to speculate about fear among various groups of people that doesn't bother me one bit (perhaps a new thread would be appropriate, Ash might want in on it), but all I'm doing here is rejecting the basis put forth for the speculation on page one. It isn't that complicated.[/quote]I was the one who proposed that it was not clearly supported, you originally alluded it was [u]contradicted[/u] by the alleged studies cited. To quote you:[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310730547' post='2267693']Still, jkaand's claim is [u]contradicted[/u] rather than supported (assuming I've located the study he was alluding to).[/quote]But even after I clearly stated that their claim was "[b][i]not clearly supported[/i][/b]", then repeated it for you, this somehow eluded you.[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310751969' post='2267810']How convenient. But I think you've missed the point of that entire explanation. Communication isn't happening here...[/quote]Respectfully agreed, communication is failing.[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310751969' post='2267810']You are mistaken here as well. And please, enlighten me, what burden of proof do I bear in this discussion? What discussion are you actually trying to have here?

1. jkaands asserted that Christians fear death more than atheists.
2. Zero evidence has been presented that substantiates this claim.
3. The alleged study that would support this claim actually does not.
4. If said study did not contradict jkaands' claim this would not make it any more credible.
5. In fact the study does cast doubt upon the claim.[/quote]These are strawman arguments. If you want to argue with jkaands, argue with jkaands.

I really can't believe I have to tell this to an adult.[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310751969' post='2267810']Get it? That's my position here. People who are sincere and interested may choose to read the things I've posted and make up their own mind about it. That's all I ask. This isn't about me and my views, just about the facts.[/quote]Technically you have made more than a few claims. For example:

"[i]On a related topic, an irreligious doctor may be more likely to give up on you, as it were.[/i]" This is not what the study concluded, this is your interpertation.

But if this is only about facts, please do what you said you were going to do, don't respond. In fact, please take my recommendation and ignore me.[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310751969' post='2267810']Again, I don't have a claim other than that the "Christians fear death and atheists don't" nonsense is not based on that study as was suggested on page one. There is no strawman fallacy in that line you've quoted, it's not even an argument, and I wasn't claiming that you put forth such a position. That entire line is a clarification of things already said. And you have the nerve to tell me to read you more carefully? smh.[/quote]Was this supposed to make sense? I hope not.
[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310751969' post='2267810']I'm sure others will see the obvious relevance of it (both the parody as such and the research that goes with it). The racial study actually has some interesting religious elements to it; quite pertinent. Not sure what your problem is.[/quote]So instead of explaining... you just offer contemptible scoff. Maybe you feel I should try to piece together your bizarre rant without a clue of what your trying to argue?[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310751969' post='2267810']Project much?[/quote]I came to this thread to see a discussion on padre pio. Which I was interested to see what the rebuttal was to my post... which was... [i]nothing[/i].

So then I saw you go into a bizarre ramble at jkaands, which I responded to hopefully contribute a different perspective.

I remember being indoctrinated about universal christian charity when I was Catholic, I don't see that anymore, not even an attempt. Has the church change its doctrine on that already? Must of... because I don't see anything charitable about what you wrote. Honestly, I don't see how it was productive or beneficial to discussion.[quote]"post the above only to contradict and chastise jkaands... I think it was a pointless, and fallacious jab that has nothing to do with Padre Pio. Flamebait?"[/quote]Maybe this shouldn't surprise me.

But for your sake, until you actually address what I wrote, you offer clarity to this discussion, or you return to topic... I don't see any reason to even entertain these tantrums. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by responding, hopeful you had something... I will be ignoring you since you don't seem mature or able enough to do that on your own.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Laudate_Dominum]

MrCat, you're much too rude and irksome for my taste. I don't think there is any meaningful communication going on to begin with. Goodbye.


Others,

If anyone out there would like clarification on my view of this topic and/or my response to any of the things that Cat has just written to me (I've not even read the whole post), let me know and I'll respond to you.


edit: cheers.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[jkaands]

Laudate,

I'm not allowed to respond to personal conversations or to email you.

*snif*

(?bec I'm in the warning category? Not sure)

Otherwise, I would be glad to.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='jkaands' timestamp='1310759298' post='2267865']
Laudate,

I'm not allowed to respond to personal conversations or to email you.

*snif*

(?bec I'm in the warning category? Not sure)

Otherwise, I would be glad to.
[/quote]
That stinks. I sorry. Wanna make a lame board thread for random chewing of the fat?

[jkaands]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1310759738' post='2267867']
That stinks. I sorry. Wanna make a lame board thread for random chewing of the fat?
[/quote]


Thanks, laudate, but Lame would be yet another invite for me to waste my time--it's not a waste, mind you, but I do waste my time posting (I trust that I make myself clear...?)

I will submit to the will of the Great Ones...

However, getting back to the topic, that is of that study we are chewing over, I will give anyone who is willing to read it, my impressions of it.

That paper[i] was[/i] a major study. I do believe that the authors' conclusion was that religious, mainly Christian, patients[i] do [/i]have an overarching fear of death that causes them to reach for any 'therapy' that would postpone it. Usually the therapy didn't postpone death, but merely prolong it. Also, maybe the religious felt that they were obliged to try anything that could conceivably prolong their lives, even though they, including Catholics, are[i] not[/i] obliged to use extreme means. I think that Piux XII was the first to articulate this, but I can't quote him. Pius, despite his faults, had an excellent mind.

Maybe this was not the conclusion of the authors, but to me, it sounded like it was.

However, there is something else that the authors did not address, which I think is important. Socioeconomic status. Was there a significant difference between the irreligious (or not-significantly-religious) and the religious? Such as a difference in education, social and educational background, race? The authors do say that 'black' patients, presumably African-Americans, appeared to want more intervention than non-blacks. But they do not go further, and I think that it is important. Other studies have shown, and I can't quote them, that educational level has a lot to do regarding whether people understand terms such as "rare", "uncommon", "unlikely", "unprecedented (as in reocvery from a certain cancer at a certain stage) and--again mentioned in the study--a lot of people didn't understand the implications of "DNR". Does this mean do nothing?? (No). Does this mean that if I have a cardiac arrest [i]without[/i] undergoing an invasive procedure, that I would not be resuscitated? (Yes). If I do undergo a procedure, while DNR, can I be resuscitated -usually yes, unless the patient directs otherwise beforehand. Medical caregivers try to avoid invasive procedures in DNR patients, especially those in this study, dying of terminal cancer. Can I request CPR (cardio-pulmonary resuscitation), even if I am dying or very elderly? Yes. My 98 year old mother-in-law requested CPR and got it. (She didn't survive.)

These conversations should start long before a patient's final days, and I feel that they should be part of the conversations of ordinary life. They don't have to involve doctors, preferably not, as MD's are notoriously poor in communicating, also in letting go of their dying patients, but should involve people trained in medical risks and judgments, also in communication (what a thought!). Usually these are nurses and/or psychologists and social workers. And we should all have advance directives and a relative/friend with our durable power of attorney for health care decisions. And we should let one's family know what our wishes are, long before it is necessary, AND if we change our minds, in any way.

Edited July 15, 2011 by jkaands

[Ash Wednesday]

I wasn't trying to just be some flamebait boogeyman and wasn't intending thought provocation to be something soley fear-based, though the wording looking at it now comes across that way. I was probably just in a black and wry mood. I'm sorry. I've just had death on the mind lately and all the implications that come behind the meaning of believing that this is all we get, and attaching meaning to life and our very existence in that context, I find that people just don't think about it very much or how fragile life is. And no, as for death, I'm not afraid of it.

Sorry, Padre Pio. I stole the doc dump's thunder. And when a document is dumped, it does make a very thunderous sound. So, yeah, Padre Pio was a pretty cool guy.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Ash Wednesday

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='jkaands' timestamp='1310770115' post='2267962']
Thanks, laudate, but Lame would be yet another invite for me to waste my time--it's not a waste, mind you, but I do waste my time posting (I trust that I make myself clear...?)

I will submit to the will of the Great Ones...

However, getting back to the topic, that is of that study we are chewing over, I will give anyone who is willing to read it, my impressions of it.

That paper[i] was[/i] a major study. I do believe that the authors' conclusion was that religious, mainly Christian, patients[i] do [/i]have an overarching fear of death that causes them to reach for any 'therapy' that would postpone it. Usually the therapy didn't postpone death, but merely prolong it. Also, maybe the religious felt that they were obliged to try anything that could conceivably prolong their lives, even though they, including Catholics, are[i] not[/i] obliged to use extreme means. I think that Piux XII was the first to articulate this, but I can't quote him. Pius, despite his faults, had an excellent mind.

Maybe this was not the conclusion of the authors, but to me, it sounded like it was.

...
[/quote]
If the mods decide to split this into a new topic (or if you want to create a new thread), I'd be happy to explain why, imo, that study does not support or necessarily suggest your hypothesis. I'll even explain why this is important if need be.

[Polsky215]

To begin, I was super tempted to quote the entire document but I decided to be nice. Padre Pio is my confirmation saint, so nice job showing the article.

[Polsky215]

[quote name='jkaands' timestamp='1310682562' post='2267507']<br />Ready--ready for what? Why abandon readon because of a fear of death? Or why not become a Protestant (gasp!) or a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu?  <br /><br />Oddly atheists aren't afraid of death and many believing Christians are. In a well-known medical study involving patients<i> dying of terminal cancer</i> at the famous Dana Farber Cancer Center in Boston, those with religious beliefs wanted everything done to prolong their lives--intubation, ongoing chemotherapy, ICU, the works.  Those that had no religious belief were much more willing to accept palliative care. They apparently had much less fear of death than believers.<br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />

Thats not fear of death, but care for life. They are two very different situations.