22 June 2012

Census highlights

| johnboy
Join the conversation
65

Here in The Eagle’s Nest we’ve been struggling to get excited about the 2011 Census data released yesterday. (Better paid, more expensive *Yawn*)

Fortunately Andrew Barr has set a minion to work finding highlights.

Population

— The (usual resident) population of the ACT in 2011 was 357,220 people, up 33,185 people and 10.2 per cent from the 324,035 people counted in 2006.

— The median age of people in the ACT in 2011 was 34 years, the same as in 2006, but three years younger than the national figure of 37 years.

— The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population counted in the ACT in 2011 was 5,183 people, up 1,311 or 33.9 per cent from the 3,872 people counted in 2006. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people represented 1.45 per cent of the ACT population in 2011, up from 1.19 per cent in 2006.

Birthplace and languages

— Nearly one in every four people (24.2 per cent) usually resident in the ACT in 2011 were born overseas, up from 21.7 per cent in 2006.

— The main countries of birth for ACT residents were Australia (71.4 per cent), followed by England (3.7 per cent) and China (1.8 per cent). Australia and England were also the two main countries of birth for ACT residents in 2006, but China has replaced New Zealand in third place. At the national level, New Zealand remains the third main country of birth with China in fourth place.

— Mandarin continued to be the main language other than English spoken at home for ACT residents in 2011, the same as in 2006 although the proportion of households increased marginally (1.9 and 1.1 per cent respectively).

— Vietnamese became the second most common language other than English spoken in 1.1 per cent of ACT households in 2011, replacing Italian, which ranked second in 2006.

Household income

— Median household income in the ACT in 2011 was $1,920, up from $1,493 in 2006. The 2011 median income for ACT households is $686 above the national median per week.

Dwellings

— The total number of dwellings counted in the ACT in 2011 was 145,475, up 13,888 or 10.6 per cent on the 131,587 dwellings counted in 2006.

— This is a faster increase in dwelling stock than that recorded for Australia as a whole of 8.2 per cent. There was a 9.8 per cent increase in occupied private dwellings in the ACT between 2006 and 2011 while the figure at the national level was 7.7 per cent.

Dwelling structure

— Dwelling structure continues to be dominated by separate houses, accounting for 70.7 per cent of occupied private dwellings in the ACT in 2011. Consistent with the national trend, the proportion of separate houses is down from 73.9 per cent in 2006, as townhouses and flats, units or apartments take up larger shares of the dwelling stock.

— Townhouses accounted for 14.9 per cent of stock in the ACT in 2011, up from 13.8 per cent in 2006.

— Flats, units and apartments accounted for 14.2 per cent of dwelling stock in the ACT in 2011, up from 12.1 per cent in 2006.

— Compared with national dwelling stock, the ACT has a lower proportion of separate houses (70.7 per cent in the ACT and 73.8 per cent nationally), a comparable share of flats, units and apartments (14.2 per cent in the ACT and 14.6 per cent nationally), and a larger share of townhouses 14.9 per cent in the ACT and 9.9 per cent nationally).

— There was no change reported in average household size for ACT in 2011 compared with 2006 (2.6 persons per household). This is exactly equal to the national figure but above South Australia and Tasmania (both 2.4 persons per household) and well below the Northern Territory (2.9 persons per household).

Dwelling tenure

— For residents of the ACT in 2011, the majority of dwellings were owned, either outright (28.4 per cent) or with a mortgage (38.9 per cent).

— The proportion of dwellings owned outright in 2011 was down slightly on the 2006 figure (29.9 per cent), while the proportion owned with a mortgage increased marginally (from 38.6 per cent in 2006).

— The proportion of dwellings owned outright in the ACT in 2011 (28.4 per cent) was less than at the national level (32.1 per cent), reflecting the younger age structure of ACT residents.

— The proportion of dwellings in the ACT in 2011 that were rented was 30.6 per cent, up slightly from 29.4 per cent in 2006. This is a slightly higher proportion than at the national level (29.6 per cent in 2011).

Housing costs

— Median household rents in the ACT have risen from $260 per week in 2006 to $380 per week in 2011. This was a 46.2 per cent increase over the five year period, but this increase was the second lowest of all the states and territories after NSW (42.9 per cent).

— The median household rent in the ACT was 33.3 per cent above the national median of $285 per week in 2011 and was the highest of all the states and territories.

— Median household mortgage repayments in the ACT have risen from $1,500 per month in 2006 to $2,167 per month in 2011. This was a 44.5 per cent increase over the five year period.

— The median household mortgage repayment in the ACT in 2011 was 20.4 per cent above the national median of $1,800 and was the highest of all the states and territories.

— Compared with other capital cities, in 2011 Canberra had:
— The highest median weekly rent of all capital cities at $380 (Canberra also had highest median weekly rent in 2006);
— The second slowest increase in median weekly rent of 46.2 per cent (after Sydney – 40.4 per cent) Darwin jumped 80.0 per cent and Perth 77.8 per cent;
— The equal highest monthly mortgage repayments of all the capital cities with $2,167 (equal to Sydney and Darwin). The increase in median monthly mortgage repayments in Canberra between 2006 and 2011 ($650) was well above the increase in Sydney ($367) but below the increase in Darwin ($778) and Perth ($700).

Join the conversation

65
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

HenryBG said :

Exactly, if you don’t know how atheists are treated in the USA, you haven’t been paying attention.

On the contrary, I have been paying attention, and am speaking from personal experience.

HenryBG said :

It’s actually quite astounding that ostracism, persecution and threats (including by government employees) is standard fare for atheists in a 21st Century western country.

Interesting assertion, and not in line with:

http://www.pewforum.org/American-Grace–How-Religion-Divides-and-Unites-Us.aspx#10

HenryBG said :

LSWCHP: you’ve outraged the god-botherers. Must have hit the nail on the head.

Do you think I’m a god-botherer? You should think again. I’m not an American either.

poetix said :

One thing that’s always amusing about these debates is that all the instances of intelligence are drawn from the scientific field, as if only scientific ability equates to intelligence (not musical, or literary, or any other area). Michael Kirby is obviously intelligent, and is a practising Anglican.

You’re holding up a lawyer as an example of an intelligent human being?

DrKoresh said :

bikhet said :

HenryBG said :

Sure it is – and there’s been a lot of new ground since Newton’s time, including the newfound freedom to admit you don’t believe in god without being persecuted.
Except in places like Saudi Arabia and the USA.

Don’t let your prejudices get the better of you. I’ll give you Saudi Arabia, but while more people in the USA may identify themselves as belonging to one religion or another than we do, none of the ones I met had any problem with my not sharing their belief.

Atheists are one of the least trusted demographics in the Grand Ol’ U.S.A whenever the issue is the subject of a poll. They come just after murderers and rapists, if I recall correctly.

Exactly, if you don’t know how atheists are treated in the USA, you haven’t been paying attention.

It’s actually quite astounding that ostracism, persecution and threats (including by government employees) is standard fare for atheists in a 21st Century western country.

LSWCHP: you’ve outraged the god-botherers. Must have hit the nail on the head.

Is there anything more pathetic than a grown adult that lives his life according to a bunch of particularly silly fairy tales?

bikhet said :

HenryBG said :

Sure it is – and there’s been a lot of new ground since Newton’s time, including the newfound freedom to admit you don’t believe in god without being persecuted.
Except in places like Saudi Arabia and the USA.

Don’t let your prejudices get the better of you. I’ll give you Saudi Arabia, but while more people in the USA may identify themselves as belonging to one religion or another than we do, none of the ones I met had any problem with my not sharing their belief.

Atheists are one of the least trusted demographics in the Grand Ol’ U.S.A whenever the issue is the subject of a poll. They come just after murderers and rapists, if I recall correctly.

Postalgeek said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Einstein firmly rejected atheism

No, he didn’t. Go back and read Wikipedia more closely. (Yes, I’ve been watching you, with Santa. You touch yourself a lot.)

He rejected the label, and he denigrated fanatical atheists. For all intents and purposes, however, he was an atheist. He didn’t believe in a personal deity, or in an afterlife, and labeled the belief in personal deities childish, naive, alien, and the product of human weaknesses.

I didn’t claim he was a theist. I’ll retract the ‘firmly rejected atheism’. My bad. He rejected the label ‘atheist’. Maybe if you explored beyond Wiki (although you don’t even have to do that) you’d know he didn’t reject the label ‘agnostic’, and has been quoted several times as saying he subscribed to Spinoza’s notion of God which was a form of pantheism. So there’s room for multiple interpretations.

I have to ask, LSWCHP, and I’m going to make the assumption that you’re an atheist, what have you accomplished in any intellectual field that surpasses the contributions made by Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, all the other denominations out there, and agnostics, all who you assert are not intelligent (it’s not as if they are even less intelligent by your definition)? I mean, what does it say about you as an intelligent atheist if you’ve been outperformed in any intellectual field by a large number of unintelligent people.

I’m no proponent of religion, I’ve encountered some uninspiring religious types, and I’ve read some considered comments by you, but for an intelligent atheist that was a pretty blind, clumsy and crass generalisation.

Well said. I’m also curious to hear about his intellectual achievements that, one would assume, far surpass that of anyone who claims to be religious.

SnapperJack said :

What? A press release about the Census from Andrew without mentioning that Canberra has more gays per capita than anywhere else? There will be hell to pay for some bureaucrat over this …

Funny, I don’t remember the question in the Census asking what your sexual orientation is.

One thing that’s always amusing about these debates is that all the instances of intelligence are drawn from the scientific field, as if only scientific ability equates to intelligence (not musical, or literary, or any other area). Michael Kirby is obviously intelligent, and is a practising Anglican. Here is an interview with him about religion and the law in which he articulates a more nuanced view on religious belief, including his dislike for god botherers:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/religionandethicsreport/22god-botherers22-and-the-christian-roots-of-australian-law/4015222

The type of fundamentalist Christianity being criticised in this thread would annoy many Christians.

Postalgeek said :

I have to ask, LSWCHP, and I’m going to make the assumption that you’re an atheist, what have you accomplished in any intellectual field that surpasses the contributions made by Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, all the other denominations out there, and agnostics, all who you assert are not intelligent (it’s not as if they are even less intelligent by your definition)? I mean, what does it say about you as an intelligent atheist if you’ve been outperformed in any intellectual field by a large number of unintelligent people.

LSWCHP said religious people were idiots, which does not mean they are not intelligent. If you think believing in a Dead Jewish Zombie is idiotic, then people who do are clearly idiots.

This is obviously subjective.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Einstein firmly rejected atheism

No, he didn’t. Go back and read Wikipedia more closely. (Yes, I’ve been watching you, with Santa. You touch yourself a lot.)

He rejected the label, and he denigrated fanatical atheists. For all intents and purposes, however, he was an atheist. He didn’t believe in a personal deity, or in an afterlife, and labeled the belief in personal deities childish, naive, alien, and the product of human weaknesses.

I didn’t claim he was a theist. I’ll retract the ‘firmly rejected atheism’. My bad. He rejected the label ‘atheist’. Maybe if you explored beyond Wiki (although you don’t even have to do that) you’d know he didn’t reject the label ‘agnostic’, and has been quoted several times as saying he subscribed to Spinoza’s notion of God which was a form of pantheism. So there’s room for multiple interpretations.

I have to ask, LSWCHP, and I’m going to make the assumption that you’re an atheist, what have you accomplished in any intellectual field that surpasses the contributions made by Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, all the other denominations out there, and agnostics, all who you assert are not intelligent (it’s not as if they are even less intelligent by your definition)? I mean, what does it say about you as an intelligent atheist if you’ve been outperformed in any intellectual field by a large number of unintelligent people.

I’m no proponent of religion, I’ve encountered some uninspiring religious types, and I’ve read some considered comments by you, but for an intelligent atheist that was a pretty blind, clumsy and crass generalisation.

LSWCHP said :

Try to become President of the USA without flaunting your fairly fundamentalist Christianity. Try to see almost any elected position in the USA without banging on about your Christian credentials. Tool around the internet to see the abuse heaped on the current Prez, simply because he has an arabic sounding name.

Not sure that any of that amounts to systematic discrimination, just people expressing their preferences – except the last sentence which clearly is kept alive by a group of ignorant nutters.

I’d argue that the separation of church and state is stronger in the USA that it is here. The recent High Court decision on the School Chaplaincy Act being an example.

LSWCHP said :

I’ve worked for extended periods in bible belt USA, where people wear their religiosity on their sleeves. I’ve often been asked which church I attend back home, and the silence when I say that I don’t attend any church has been, umm, damning. Not that I give a shit.

Your experience differs from mine, though admittedly I haven’t spent much time in the bible belt – New England, the mid-Atlantic region, the Mid-West, the Mountain West (including Utah) and the West Coast yes, but not the bible belt. I don’t think I was ever asked about my religious views other than by those who knew me well, and their attitude was always one of interest but tolerance.

justin heywood said :

LSWCHP said :

I work with people who have PhDs, and who are also (to my amazement0 deeply religious. I’ve heard them sitting around in the lunch room furiously agreeing with each other about how that carbon14 dating stuff is is all bogus…

Bullshit

No really. It happens. I’ve seen it. Engineering PhDs taking the bible literally.

justin heywood11:35 pm 24 Jun 12

LSWCHP said :

…..

I work with people who have PhDs, and who are also (to my amazement0 deeply religious.I’ve heard them sitting around in the lunch room furiously agreeing with each other about how that carbon14 dating stuff is is all bogus and has been totally discredited by recent research that confirms that the world really is only 4000 years old, and all the dinosaur fossils were put there by god to test our faith, etc etc. You know, fundamentalist nutjobs.
.

Bullshit

bikhet said :

HenryBG said :

Sure it is – and there’s been a lot of new ground since Newton’s time, including the newfound freedom to admit you don’t believe in god without being persecuted.
Except in places like Saudi Arabia and the USA.

Don’t let your prejudices get the better of you. I’ll give you Saudi Arabia, but while more people in the USA may identify themselves as belonging to one religion or another than we do, none of the ones I met had any problem with my not sharing their belief.

Religious extremism and discrimination is alive and well in the good ole USA. It’s obviously not as bad as Saudi Arabia, which is run by Wahabist nutters, but it’s there.

Try to become President of the USA without flaunting your fairly fundamentalist Christianity. Try to see almost any elected position in the USA without banging on about your Christian credentials. Tool around the internet to see the abuse heaped on the current Prez, simply because he has an arabic sounding name.

I’ve worked for extended periods in bible belt USA, where people wear their religiosity on their sleeves. I’ve often been asked which church I attend back home, and the silence when I say that I don’t attend any church has been, umm, damning. Not that I give a shit.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Einstein firmly rejected atheism

No, he didn’t. Go back and read Wikipedia more closely. (Yes, I’ve been watching you, with Santa. You touch yourself a lot.)

He rejected the label, and he denigrated fanatical atheists. For all intents and purposes, however, he was an atheist. He didn’t believe in a personal deity, or in an afterlife, and labeled the belief in personal deities childish, naive, alien, and the product of human weaknesses.

Well hey then, I’m with Einstein, he’s not as dumb as I thought he was.

I work with people who have PhDs, and who are also (to my amazement0 deeply religious.I’ve heard them sitting around in the lunch room furiously agreeing with each other about how that carbon14 dating stuff is is all bogus and has been totally discredited by recent research that confirms that the world really is only 4000 years old, and all the dinosaur fossils were put there by god to test our faith, etc etc. You know, fundamentalist nutjobs.

I see them as idiot savants. They are incredibly good at the maths, but they’re still idiots.

HenryBG said :

That aside, what do you make of the fact that my 13-year-old, of average IQ, knows more about physics than Einstein and Newton combined?

0_0

Your 13-year old can solve Einstein’s ten-dimensional equations? Damn! I dips me lid.

And yes, Einstein was an atheist.

HenryBG said :

That aside, what do you make of the fact that my 13-year-old, of average IQ, knows more about physics than Einstein and Newton combined?

I make it that you are full of crap.

Your 13 year old daughter may understand the general principles developed by these physicists and others.

However, I am almost certain if you showed her the mathematics attached to these principles she would have no idea what she was looking at unless she’s some type of savant.

HenryBG said :

Sure it is – and there’s been a lot of new ground since Newton’s time, including the newfound freedom to admit you don’t believe in god without being persecuted.
Except in places like Saudi Arabia and the USA.

Don’t let your prejudices get the better of you. I’ll give you Saudi Arabia, but while more people in the USA may identify themselves as belonging to one religion or another than we do, none of the ones I met had any problem with my not sharing their belief.

johnboy said :

How many new advances has your 13 year old made? Reading others work is a lot easier than breaking new ground.

Sure it is – and there’s been a lot of new ground since Newton’s time, including the newfound freedom to admit you don’t believe in god without being persecuted.
Except in places like Saudi Arabia and the USA.

justin heywood4:25 pm 23 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

[…what do you make of the fact that my 13-year-old, of average IQ, knows more about physics than Einstein and Newton combined?

Dunno Henry, what do you make of it? Almost all my friends think their children are unrecognised prodigies, perhaps your girl is too?

But my guess is that if Einstein et al hadn’t existed, your girl might not understand physics at all.

Anyone of any intelligence rejects a simplistic notion that intelligence can be reduced to a number. Or that intelligence is the most important quality.

Postalgeek said :

…., speaking of which Einstein firmly rejected atheism, so I guess he goes in the schmuck pile as well.

Having already covered the link between low IQ and religious belief, we now venture into the link between religion and lies.
Einstein was obviously an atheist.

That aside, what do you make of the fact that my 13-year-old, of average IQ, knows more about physics than Einstein and Newton combined?

How many new advances has your 13 year old made? Reading others work is a lot easier than breaking new ground.

harvyk1 said :

In fact just to be a smart arse -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issac_newton#Religious_views
If your assertion was correct, Sir Issac Newton would have spent no time at all thinking about religion, where as it turns out he spent more time thinking about religion than science.

And he probably spent more time thinking about alchemy than about either.

Newton was a man of his time, and alchemy and religion were fundamental tenets of the day. That doesn’t mean that either had – or have – any legs.

One of my mates is a Catholic priest and a very smart man. If you have to choose between intelligence and childhood conditioning/indoctrination, choose the latter every time.

Woody Mann-Caruso2:32 pm 23 Jun 12

Einstein firmly rejected atheism

No, he didn’t. Go back and read Wikipedia more closely. (Yes, I’ve been watching you, with Santa. You touch yourself a lot.)

He rejected the label, and he denigrated fanatical atheists. For all intents and purposes, however, he was an atheist. He didn’t believe in a personal deity, or in an afterlife, and labeled the belief in personal deities childish, naive, alien, and the product of human weaknesses.

harvyk1 said :

In fact just to be a smart arse -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issac_newton#Religious_views
If your assertion was correct, Sir Issac Newton would have spent no time at all thinking about religion, where as it turns out he spent more time thinking about religion than science.

Why stop at Newton?

Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo, Boyle, Kelvin, Pasteur, Da Vinci, Heisenberg, Corpenicus, and that’s just the starting gun. Apparently all the Jewish scientists involved with the Manhattan project and those involved in rocket science were unintelligent too, speaking of which Einstein firmly rejected atheism, so I guess he goes in the schmuck pile as well.

poetix said :

Jethro said :

Deref said :

Gotta say that I’m amazed that the proportion of godless heathens is so low.

I know that personal experience is no guide, but of all the people I know (and I suppose I know as many as the average person) only two of them would identify as having any religion.

I wonder if the results would have been different if the following had occurred at census time:

1. The ‘no religion’ option was placed at the top of the list, not the bottom. My theory is, people scan down the list, see the religious denomination they were raised in, and select it, without considering the no religion option.

2. The question had asked if the person was practising or non-practising. A lot of people select Catholic, Jewish, etc, because it reflects their cultural denomination, not their spiritual beliefs. I envision a question directly after the religious question: “How many times in the past month have you attended a religious service?”

The issue is, groups like the ACL point to census data to support their extremist religious agenda. It would be interesting to know how many people select a religion that they rarely if ever practise, and which they have little to no spiritual belief in.

So do you have to be a practising atheist? How does that work? Is posting on on the RiotACT sufficient?

Well selecting no religion is simply stating that you have an absence of belief in a supernatural deity. There is nothing you have to do or believe in to be an atheist.

But if you select a religion because of some cultural affiliation to it as opposed to any real belief in its theology you are giving a false picture that you believe in that religion’s god.

poetix said :

Deref said :

Gotta say that I’m amazed that the proportion of godless heathens is so low.

I know that personal experience is no guide, but of all the people I know (and I suppose I know as many as the average person) only two of them would identify as having any religion.

Perhaps many people who you know feel they will be ridiculed if they mention religion, or that they might be seen as pushing religion? Which is like a trolley, in my case full of lemon butter and wine.

I would be interested in hearing how many who put ‘no religion’ saw themselves as ‘agnostic’ and how many as an ‘atheist’. There is a significant difference between the assertion of no god, and the ‘um, I don’t know’, which is quite a different kettle of ambhibians. Atheists often claim agnostics in their statistics, which is intellectually dishonest. Siimilarly, I would love to see household income measured against religion. My totallly non-scientific guess is that at the lower and higher ends the belief in God (of whatever flavour) would be more marked.

I don’t understand any of that stuff about majorities discussed above.

Agnosticism is a bit more complex that “um… I don’t know”. It’s more the notion that asserting either the existence or non-existence of a God is not logically sound. You can’t prove a negative, and there isn’t any real objective evidence that proves there IS a God. Agnostics tend to see it as an irrelevant question as, I believe, do many self-proclaimed atheists so I don’t think it’s fair to call the combination of the two groups “intellectually dishonest”.

LSWCHP said :

Deref said :

Gotta say that I’m amazed that the proportion of godless heathens is so low.

I know that personal experience is no guide, but of all the people I know (and I suppose I know as many as the average person) only two of them would identify as having any religion.

The fact is that the majority (and I mean the *entire* majority, ie 100%) of intelligent people are godless. If you hang around with smart people, you’ll find that they are atheists. It’s as simple as that.

Of course, the converse is also true.

Well that’s one hell of an assertion, and I can also infer that you are not one of the intelligent people, as if you where then you’d know that the only way to absolutely prove your statement is by asking every smart person on the planet (who has ever been, or will ever be) about their beliefs. If one intelligent person says they believe in a god of any kind then your assertion is false.

In fact just to be a smart arse -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issac_newton#Religious_views
If your assertion was correct, Sir Issac Newton would have spent no time at all thinking about religion, where as it turns out he spent more time thinking about religion than science.

For the record I hold no real religious views, but I don’t automatically have a problem with anyone who does.

Jethro said :

Deref said :

Gotta say that I’m amazed that the proportion of godless heathens is so low.

I know that personal experience is no guide, but of all the people I know (and I suppose I know as many as the average person) only two of them would identify as having any religion.

I wonder if the results would have been different if the following had occurred at census time:

1. The ‘no religion’ option was placed at the top of the list, not the bottom. My theory is, people scan down the list, see the religious denomination they were raised in, and select it, without considering the no religion option.

2. The question had asked if the person was practising or non-practising. A lot of people select Catholic, Jewish, etc, because it reflects their cultural denomination, not their spiritual beliefs. I envision a question directly after the religious question: “How many times in the past month have you attended a religious service?”

The issue is, groups like the ACL point to census data to support their extremist religious agenda. It would be interesting to know how many people select a religion that they rarely if ever practise, and which they have little to no spiritual belief in.

So do you have to be a practising atheist? How does that work? Is posting on on the RiotACT sufficient?

And LSWCHP, some intelligent people are Christians (or have other religious beliefs). I have met one or two thatI would even describe as quite bright.

justin heywood10:31 am 23 Jun 12

LSWCHP said :

Deref said :

Gotta say that I’m amazed that the proportion of godless heathens is so low.

I know that personal experience is no guide, but of all the people I know (and I suppose I know as many as the average person) only two of them would identify as having any religion.

The fact is that the majority (and I mean the *entire* majority, ie 100%) of intelligent people are godless. If you hang around with smart people, you’ll find that they are atheists. It’s as simple as that.

Of course, the converse is also true.

“…100% of intelligent people are godless”. ? That’s a big call.

Or do you mean “I don’t have any spiritual beliefs, therefore anyone who does must be stupid”

If you don’t know intelligent, thoughtful people who have a faith or belief of some kind, you need to widen your circle of friends.

poetix said :

Perhaps many people who you know feel they will be ridiculed if they mention religion, or that they might be seen as pushing religion?

So the vast majority of his friends are either godless, or they realise that religion is ridiculous.

Religion isn’t necessarily just something that’s been beaten into the stupid, it’s also a crutch for otherwise smart people who have a very common psychological problem: fear of irrelevance.

LSWCHP said :

Deref said :

Gotta say that I’m amazed that the proportion of godless heathens is so low.

I know that personal experience is no guide, but of all the people I know (and I suppose I know as many as the average person) only two of them would identify as having any religion.

The fact is that the majority (and I mean the *entire* majority, ie 100%) of intelligent people are godless. If you hang around with smart people, you’ll find that they are atheists. It’s as simple as that.

Of course, the converse is also true.

True, of course.

poetix said :

I would be interested in hearing how many who put ‘no religion’ saw themselves as ‘agnostic’ and how many as an ‘atheist’. There is a significant difference between the assertion of no god, and the ‘um, I don’t know’, which is quite a different kettle of ambhibians. Atheists often claim agnostics in their statistics, which is intellectually dishonest.

Can’t agree. I have no doubt that any atheist would be well aware of the precept that you can’t prove a negative and would clarify (if it needed clarification) that their position is that there’s no evidence for a god. The distinction’s a vague one at best.

poetix said :

Siimilarly, I would love to see household income measured against religion. My totallly non-scientific guess is that at the lower and higher ends the belief in God (of whatever flavour) would be more marked.

That’s an interesting proposition. I’d like to see that breakdown too.

Deref said :

Gotta say that I’m amazed that the proportion of godless heathens is so low.

I know that personal experience is no guide, but of all the people I know (and I suppose I know as many as the average person) only two of them would identify as having any religion.

I wonder if the results would have been different if the following had occurred at census time:

1. The ‘no religion’ option was placed at the top of the list, not the bottom. My theory is, people scan down the list, see the religious denomination they were raised in, and select it, without considering the no religion option.

2. The question had asked if the person was practising or non-practising. A lot of people select Catholic, Jewish, etc, because it reflects their cultural denomination, not their spiritual beliefs. I envision a question directly after the religious question: “How many times in the past month have you attended a religious service?”

The issue is, groups like the ACL point to census data to support their extremist religious agenda. It would be interesting to know how many people select a religion that they rarely if ever practise, and which they have little to no spiritual belief in.

LSWCHP said :

Deref said :

Gotta say that I’m amazed that the proportion of godless heathens is so low.

I know that personal experience is no guide, but of all the people I know (and I suppose I know as many as the average person) only two of them would identify as having any religion.

The fact is that the majority (and I mean the *entire* majority, ie 100%) of intelligent people are godless. If you hang around with smart people, you’ll find that they are atheists. It’s as simple as that.

Of course, the converse is also true.

So, is this your way of saying you believe in God?

Deref said :

Gotta say that I’m amazed that the proportion of godless heathens is so low.

I know that personal experience is no guide, but of all the people I know (and I suppose I know as many as the average person) only two of them would identify as having any religion.

The fact is that the majority (and I mean the *entire* majority, ie 100%) of intelligent people are godless. If you hang around with smart people, you’ll find that they are atheists. It’s as simple as that.

Of course, the converse is also true.

p1 said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Is there one single point that I should be reading?

DEY TUK ER JURBS

Not yet, but if MrRabbot wins the next election…….

Huh? Doug Cameron and Paul Howes are the ones pushing the “they took our jobs” agenda at the moment.

Deref said :

Gotta say that I’m amazed that the proportion of godless heathens is so low.

I know that personal experience is no guide, but of all the people I know (and I suppose I know as many as the average person) only two of them would identify as having any religion.

Perhaps many people who you know feel they will be ridiculed if they mention religion, or that they might be seen as pushing religion? Which is like a trolley, in my case full of lemon butter and wine.

I would be interested in hearing how many who put ‘no religion’ saw themselves as ‘agnostic’ and how many as an ‘atheist’. There is a significant difference between the assertion of no god, and the ‘um, I don’t know’, which is quite a different kettle of ambhibians. Atheists often claim agnostics in their statistics, which is intellectually dishonest. Siimilarly, I would love to see household income measured against religion. My totallly non-scientific guess is that at the lower and higher ends the belief in God (of whatever flavour) would be more marked.

I don’t understand any of that stuff about majorities discussed above.

50% of your friends are below average…

What? A press release about the Census from Andrew without mentioning that Canberra has more gays per capita than anywhere else? There will be hell to pay for some bureaucrat over this …

Well I’m glad that’s cleared-up, though I still think the plurality of people would use the word ‘majority’. But time-wasting pedantry is also really important, so I’m happy this thread has been so heavily de-railed.

Gotta say that I’m amazed that the proportion of godless heathens is so low.

I know that personal experience is no guide, but of all the people I know (and I suppose I know as many as the average person) only two of them would identify as having any religion.

A majority is not the largest single grouping – a majority is more than 50%.

The largest single grouping is called a plurality.

Yes, Apologies I was thinking simple majority.

This is all well and good. Now how many of us self identify as Jedi ?

FioBla said :

johnboy said :

The biggest single group is the majority. They’re just not an absolute majority!

In the age groups, the 20–24 years group is the largest group at 8.6%.

The majority of people in the ACT are 20–24 years old?

I mean, the “biggest single group” are the religious, not the godless.

Adding the Christian denominations together, 44.1% of the ACT population identify as Christian. And yet “majority of Canberrans are self-identifying as either atheist or Agnostic” is a fair statement. Wut.

Oh come on, there was no venom in anything I said, or JB. There’s no need to react so emotionally. And yes, I suppose you’re right and my age group is technically also the majority, because that’s what majority means. If you can get all the differing sects of Christianity to combine without crucifying eachother over differing interpretations of scripture then sure, I guess they’re still the majority, but I mean, that will never happen. 😀

I-filed said :

Indigenous population up 33 per cent? No, people self-identifying as Indigenous up 33 per cent. A significant number of those self-identifiers could well be frauds.

I agree with the first part of your post. Not sure I’d be calling people “frauds”, though.

What I’ve always wondered about is this: being 1/8 indigenous makes you indigenous, but being 7/8 white (or European, or Anglo, etc) doesn’t make you white/Anglo. How does that work? Seems like a throw back to the days where “any impurity means you’re impure”, if you get me.

Does it seem odd to anyone else?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back1:51 pm 22 Jun 12

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

A significant number of those self-identifiers could well be frauds.

A NEW LIFE AWAITS YOU IN THE OFFWORLD ABORIGINAL COLONIES! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

What – New Zealand?

johnboy said :

The biggest single group is the majority. They’re just not an absolute majority!

Depends. If the largest group was, say, Scientologists, it might be fair to say they are the majority religion. But “No Religion” isn’t actually a religion, so it seems a little wrong to me to compare them with subsets of the religion category. “No religion” surely only compares with “Yes religion”.

Although, really that is only measuring people who self identify as religious – some of them may be frauds.

Woody Mann-Caruso1:32 pm 22 Jun 12

A significant number of those self-identifiers could well be frauds.

A NEW LIFE AWAITS YOU IN THE OFFWORLD ABORIGINAL COLONIES! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

johnboy said :

The biggest single group is the majority. They’re just not an absolute majority!

In the age groups, the 20–24 years group is the largest group at 8.6%.

The majority of people in the ACT are 20–24 years old?

I mean, the “biggest single group” are the religious, not the godless.

Adding the Christian denominations together, 44.1% of the ACT population identify as Christian. And yet “majority of Canberrans are self-identifying as either atheist or Agnostic” is a fair statement. Wut.

harvyk1 said :

No I don’t remember question 33 specifically… In fact beyond knowing I put some stuff into a form which was more than likely correct, I don’t really remember the census at all.

Neither did I, just stirring a little…..

pink little birdie1:22 pm 22 Jun 12

I-filed said :

Indigenous population up 33 per cent? No, people self-identifying as Indigenous up 33 per cent. A significant number of those self-identifiers could well be frauds.

Also I seem to remember the Census people promoting at all the NAIDOC week events last year :-).

It’s an increase in all major urban areas. The Australian thinks that it’s partially more people willing to identify from Rudd’s apologie. The age profile of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is consistant with the previous Census.

Yay ACT!!!

Yes, JB knows what I’m talking about.

I-filed said :

Indigenous population up 33 per cent? No, people self-identifying as Indigenous up 33 per cent. A significant number of those self-identifiers could well be frauds.

Thank you Mr Bolt, your views are important and have been taken on board.

So explain to me again why this is fraudulent. The census is confidential and the results are anonymized so the only people who would know are those that saw the household’s form.

davo101 said :

Surely you remember question 33:

No I don’t remember question 33 specifically… In fact beyond knowing I put some stuff into a form which was more than likely correct, I don’t really remember the census at all.

DrKoresh said :

I was pleased to see the majority of Canberrans are self-identifying as either atheist or Agnostic. In most places the Godless are the only minority it’s still okay to be bigoted against, but I never feel that here. Now I know why 😀

28.9% is not “the majority”. The “godless” are still a minority, just as they/we are Australia-wide (22.3%).

The figures for the ACT are here: http://censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/8

The biggest single group is the majority. They’re just not an absolute majority!

Indigenous population up 33 per cent? No, people self-identifying as Indigenous up 33 per cent. A significant number of those self-identifiers could well be frauds.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Is there one single point that I should be reading?

DEY TUK ER JURBS

Not yet, but if MrRabbot wins the next election…….

harvyk1 said :

Is the median household income of $1,920 per week before or after tax? Just curious as we’re either right on the median (if after tax) or better than the median (if before tax)

Surely you remember question 33:

What is the total of all wages/salaries, government benefits, pensions, allowances and other income the person usually receives?
• Do not deduct: tax, superannuation contributions, health insurance, amounts salary sacrificed, or any other automatic deductions.

Woody Mann-Caruso12:53 pm 22 Jun 12

Is there one single point that I should be reading?

DEY TUK ER JURBS

Is the median household income of $1,920 per week before or after tax? Just curious as we’re either right on the median (if after tax) or better than the median (if before tax)

p1 said :

Still TL:DR.

Is there one single point that I should be reading?

This bit:

Median household income in the ACT in 2011 was $1,920, up from $1,493 in 2006. The 2011 median income for ACT households is $686 above the national median per week.

Which will allow you to adjust the amount of bitching and moaning about how expensive Canberra is to a national standard.

I was pleased to see the majority of Canberrans are self-identifying as either atheist or Agnostic. In most places the Godless are the only minority it’s still okay to be bigoted against, but I never feel that here. Now I know why 😀

Still TL:DR.

Is there one single point that I should be reading?

So, my household income is almost bang on the ACT median, yet we’re paying a significant amount more than the median rent. No wonder I always feel broke. 🙁

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.