Quote:
Originally posted by spacebandit
yet their religions say they should help the poor, the needy, the less fortunate
Quote:
|
Physicians who were more religious in general (as measured by intrinsic religiosity or frequency of attendance at religious services) were not more likely to report care for the underserved
|
again - strange as their "religion" dictates the opposite
Quote:
|
Admissions policies that favor certain religious or spiritual characteristics are not likely to be adopted for many reasons, but if they were, our findings would suggest that admissions officials should ignore both the general religiousness of candidates and their sense of calling to medicine, and should give preference to applicants who consider themselves very spiritual, who either have no religion or strongly agree that the religion they have influences their practice of medicine, or who agree that their families of origin emphasized service to the poor.
|
the emboldening is mine.
My definition of someone who states they have no religion is "atheist" - wow what a stunning revelation that must be
Reading the whole report helps.
Not just the cover sheet
|
There's nothing in the study to suggest that they don't. Even the wealthy get sick.
'Not more likely' hardly means shun and ignore, and nor does it mean (as far as the data used for this study is concerned) that they are intentionally less likely to, either.
Your definition of an atheist is rather odd. The text you've quoted refers to those who 'have no religion'. Lots of people have no religion, yet still believe in god. The study bands people of differing beliefs (or lack of) together, and no amount of bitter sarcasm is going to change the fact.
I did indeed read the whole study, rather than just the abstract (or 'cover sheet' as you call it). Otherwise, I wouldn't have been aware that the findings had been distorted to fit a bogus assumption.