We are not going backwards

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Some folks seem a mite disheartened by the census results and the outcome of the Ron Williams case. While things could be better, that is always the case and I take heart in the following:
Change only occurs quickly through revolution and this usually results in a nett decrease in enfranchisement and societal happiness. The census results indicate change in the direction I am happiest with, and while having a greater proportion of non-believers on show is a boon, the argument that no religion deserves special consideration on any front can be made even if there is only a single dissenter from that belief framework. Even a change a thousandth the size of that which was measured in the desired direction would be more welcome than a move in the opposite direction.
I think it is likely that the AFA campaign, and the religious attempts to counter it, had a positive effect, but even if no statistically significant signal shows up in the data, I am happy that my dues contributed to the census campaign. The AFA effort was positive, it was inoffensive and it was a talking point for many months. Awareness, while not the only thing, is a thing.

The Ron Williams outcome leaves scope for much chicanery from the present and future governments, and the uncertainties it throws on funding for other social programmes could see some people aim resentment at atheists for rocking the boat. Fuck that noise. If someone tries pinning that bullshit on you, make the argument about why it is important to get a fair deal for everyone, not about why it is best to avoid rocking boats in case the gold trim falls off the gunwales.
Again, I see awareness arising from this situation as valuable, even if the outcome itself is less than people might have hoped for. The government has been employing people with specific religious qualifications by proxy. The proxy bit does not make it right and you can point that out to anyone who tries to argue the toss with you on the matter. If we have to fight the same case at state level, so be it. Keep the argument on message and don't ever avoid rocking a boat just because someone else gets queasy. Tell them to take a constitutional Kwell tablet and to shut the fuck up while you get on with the business of improving the society you are part of.

[Centauri]

Well said WLB. I am in agreement. Imagine how we'd feel if the census had shown that No religion had dropped from 18.3% to something like 16 or 15%? I'd be gutted.

Atheism is rising. Good people like Ron Williams are being heard. Only a few hundred years ago, people were tortured and murdered by priests for standing up against the ridiculousness, falsehoods and immorality of religious doctrine.

Fuck christianity and islam. Ensure that human sacrifice and apocolyptic delusions are cut out and removed from politics and education. It's bad for society, and it's bad for YOU.

[BlueDevil]

I am both pleased and disappointed with the census result. It is certainly pleasing that there has been a move towards a higher number of no religion responses. And as Xeno has pointed out that increase is close to 20%. Some of those who have 'changed' may well be former christians (or other religions) who have realised it was no longer appropriate to call themselves religious. Some no doubt would be from the 'couldn't be bothered answering the question' group who have decided to stand up and be counted as atheists. (I am still unable to find data as to how many didn't answer the question).

My disappointment stems from the fact that I had hoped for more. It would seem that my expectation was unrealistic given the result. Why did I expect more?

- over the last decade or so atheism has become so much more accepted in society. It is talked about and written about more than ever before. I had hoped that this clear change would be reflected in larger numbers of people distancing themselves from religion. (I guess many of those who read Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc are already of an atheist persuasion, although we clearly get people joining this forum who state that those sort of books had a significant influence on them finally realising they were non believers).

- I had hoped that the AFA campaign would have had a larger effect on the 'token religious'. In reality the campaign has almost certainly had a positive influence on some people, although we will never know how many. So maybe the AFA can take major credit for the swing that has been seen, it is just that I was hoping that it would have been bigger. I still believe the campaign to have been worthwhile and would definitely support it next time around. Educating those non-believers who continue to tick the 'catholic box' (or whatever) as to the effect this has on government policy is important and needs to be ongoing.

- I see New Zealand as being a country somewhat similar to our own. They had a No Religion figure of 34.7% in 2006 (a pretty decent rise from 29.6% in 2001). Maybe they 'achieve' such a high No Religion percentage because their census question is much better worded than ours, and doesn't have the inherent bias evident in the Australian census question.

- I am quite convinced that more than 22.3% of Aussies are in reality non-believers. This is speculation, but I don't think I am alone in that viewpoint. The question is how do we get people to really think about this issue carefully and to document accurately their current viewpoint? The census data is important in its own right since the government mistakenly assume that religion is important to more people than in reality give a toss. But apart from the census I would also like to see more Aussies with 'marginal' religious viewpoints truly giving consideration to the issue of religion and hopefully seeing it to be the myth that it almost certainly is.


So the trend towards decreasing religious affiliation which has been evident for many years has continued. Good. I had hoped for a larger 'jump' in that trend, but nevertheless the fact that the trend continues is very pleasing.

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by BlueDevil

- I am quite convinced that more than 22.3% of Aussies are in reality non-believers.

I agree there is bias in the Census question. For other measures of non-belief, I pay attention to things like 69% of people marrying (and by the fact of marrying, not the radical fringe) choose a civil celebrant over a church service, while by the church's own measures only about 8% of the population attend church with any regularity at all.

However, many homeopathists, anti-vaxxers and so on, are also non-participants in established churches. I can imagine and encounter religious people who carry no agenda on their beliefs and do little apparent harm. I have greater difficulty seeing overtly anti-science people, spreaders of disease and death, as mostly harmless.

Sorry, I wandered off your topic a bit there.

[Darwinsbulldog]

What we are seeing is both adaptation and drift in social realities. Atheism is gaining [adaption], but loss is due to drift: folks leaving established religions and becoming "Eastern/Buddhist", new agers and luddites like the anti-vacc crowd.
I don't see any silver bullet, just more plodding and chipping away. Many of the point we make are too subtle for the general public-not that they are thick, but that they choose, and are happy with, not exercising their brains.
Examples from history show that general public enthusiam with science and reason often happens when society is in an expansionist mode. Unfortunately, this often means empire and conquest. How do we make curiousity a virtue as a value in itself, rather than as a by-product of nationalism or conquest??? [And most of these were driven by, or at least exploited by, religions].

[rayne]

Originally Posted by BlueDevil

My disappointment stems from the fact that I had hoped for more. It would seem that my expectation was unrealistic given the result. Why did I expect more?

The census results only paint a picture about the respondents not the entire country. Those results don't take into account the people who never filled out the forms.

Also the results could be skewed by people who have no belief but put down the religion they were raised in or baptised/christened into etc. Many people have yet to realise that just because you were baptised/christened etc does not mean that you have to adopt that label. A bet quite a few of the respondents would say 'I was (insert ceremony) so I guess that makes me (insert religion).

My parents for example marked "Catholic" in their section of the census forms even though they have no religious beliefs and don't believe in any god(s). I was living in their house at the time so dad filled out as much as he could for me and I would do the rest (I was ill), he automatically marked "Catholic" for me, when I quizzed him about while marking "No religion" his answer was "Well you were christened". Which in no way makes me Catholic.

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by rayne

The census results only paint a picture about the respondents not the entire country. Those results don't take into account the people who never filled out the forms.

While I agree with the rest of your post which I have not quoted, this part is not supportable. Validation is carried out by the ABS through sampling and inter-census comparisons. Whilst it is a truism that you do not know the views of people who do not answer, the Census is highly successful at painting a reliable picture of the entire country. You can not really pretend otherwise except on the smallest scales of response.

That it is fair to suppose that "not stated" might include a significant number of the non-religious does not make the Census unreliable.

[Medeyer]

Just an example of how the census isn't as accurate as it could be. I got into a debate with my friends brother last weekend. Stuff like abortion and gay-marriage were brought up. The thing is he doesn't believe in the Christian god, or any god for that matter. He thinks there might be a higher power, making him agnostic, but when I challenged him with this, he immediately identified himself as a Catholic for some reason. He doesn't believe the Christian god exists, does not have any involvement with any church, nor follows any of the rules or guidelines that Christians preach, so why would he identify with Catholicism? He said he just did, and there was nothing more to it. But I'm going to go with he was brought up that way and it was just a hard habit to kick. I'm certain there's a million similar cases like this in Australia.

[Xeno]

@Medeyer: you raise a different question from the one I raised with rayne, and one I covered to an extent in #4

[BlueDevil]

Originally Posted by Medeyer

Just an example of how the census isn't as accurate as it could be. I got into a debate with my friends brother last weekend. Stuff like abortion and gay-marriage were brought up. The thing is he doesn't believe in the Christian god, or any god for that matter. He thinks there might be a higher power, making him agnostic, but when I challenged him with this, he immediately identified himself as a Catholic for some reason. He doesn't believe the Christian god exists, does not have any involvement with any church, nor follows any of the rules or guidelines that Christians preach, so why would he identify with Catholicism? He said he just did, and there was nothing more to it. But I'm going to go with he was brought up that way and it was just a hard habit to kick. I'm certain there's a million similar cases like this in Australia.

This was one of the primary issues that the AFA pre-census campaign tried to address. There are many stories such as yours (I can cite one myself), and together they most probably make up a significant proportion of the respondents who identify with a religion.

It is not easy to change peoples behaviour. We can but try again at the next census to pesuade at least a few to state their current religious affiliation (or lack thereof) not that of their upbringing. People need to understand that that ticking catholic (or whatever) has implications in terms of government policy and funding. Puting pressure on the ABS to change the leading nature of the current question may also help address the issue.