Talk:Religion in Australia

No source for amount of Catholic schools

The article mentions 25% of Australians being Catholic and 25% of Australian schools being affiliated with the Catholic church but the news.au link it cites for that only contains the first part, not mentioning schools at all. Where does this info come from? Klarbohydrate (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct chart!

• All Aussies are equal, so we put first the larger population, not the one we like.
• other is something specific we didn't have enough space to mention (if something is below 1% you are allowed not to mention for practical reasons), the unspecified even when they are more, they should go below, because they didn't declare something specific. Agnosticism for example is to make the unspecified metaphysics your own, but that IS something specific!

Biased usage of a hyponym as a supposed utmost hypernym on the title (of the survey, article, etc); and fusionist approach towards the specific non-religious worldviews; also false creation of more non-s (people who are non-s in respect of the noun of the title, because being a hyponym it creates more non-s; that's a specific indication that our title was unaptly selected (also there's is no excuse "the Australian statisticians did that; we are supposed to record the facts and secondarily mention the biasing of others; Wikipedia is not the Australian statisticians)

You use a survey title focusing on religion and you claim that the most common religious belief is no religion.

It's absolutely certain you have a low IQ, or you want to harm some cohorts.

No; certainly is an option, but you are biased on using a term (religion) when the plurality is against the title (you gave up; you didn't try to select a wider hypernym on the title in order less non-somethings occur due to bad hypernymification) (iff Christians are analyzed [and not fused/merged] into separate actual Churches and organizations; that is correct and important, people in everyday life interact with their Church, not with some statistical fusion).

Religion isn't the ultimate hypernym of personal belief concerning metaphysics.

Faith is a superior option as a title than religion, but still the noun faith includes religious senses/meanings/definitions.

Metaphysical worldview is a more apt option as a hypernymous survey title.

Also you (the common statistician) 've merged "cosmological non-personocracy = atheism" with "openness to the possibility of cosmological personocracy and violation of physics = agnosticism" and with "religious indifference sometimes mentioned non abiding, non adherence, irreligion".

You created a Frankenstein merger of a variety of approaches, and you've named it "no religion" but you (the common statistician) were specifically methodical on dividing/not merging/analyzing the different theistic affiliations and other religious options.

We have no excuse to merge and hide cohorts larger than 2%.

Also you might claim on the title's hypernym that even the two-worded (bilectic) noun "metaphysical worldview" will lead to some nones, to some noes. An atheist is a non religious, if we biasedly focus on the propaganda on claiming that every metaphysical worldview, has as its pseudohypernym religion, and religion is the hypernym of itself... more accurately we are supposed to analyze the religions, but not the non religious metaphysical worldviews. Why? Your job as a statistician isn't to judge silly people who differentiated for reasons considered inferior to you. You shouldn't merge opinions beyond the 2% even if you being a racist, claim that you don't like what these people think. The statistician shouldn't act like Elbridge Gerry.

An atheist is a "non-" in respect of the biasedly selected metaphysical hyponym of religion (religion is one out of many metaphysical worldviews, thus is it's hyponym = subgroup).

An atheist is NOT A NON- in concern to the wider and correct hypernym, the "metaphysical worldview". Atheists, and agnostics are non-s in respect of religion, but they are not non-s in respect of "metaphysical worldview" or colloquially faith (but the noun faith is a bad hypernym because of its religious definitions). The agnostic has a specific metaphysical worldview, not about the cosmos/cosmomechanics, but in respect of his opinion on cosmomechanics (cosmomechanics means how the universe or the wider philosophical cosmos work, it means "philosophical physics", "physics as interpreted by philosophers, the overall physics including god if he exists; that's why we need the differentiation between cosmomechanics and physics in philosophy).

In respect of the hypernym "metaphysical worldview", the religious indifferent remains a non-.

No cladistical system (here not the biological cladistics, but the general notion) is perfect.

We should create the least non-s.

That's an indication we selected an apt hypernym on the title.

We shouldn't biasedy distort a hyponym as a hypernym, especially used as the all inclusive title.

We shouldn't merge different opinions like atheism, agnosticism, indifference, when their percentage is higher than 2%.

We can only be more analytical - if we have space and wish to write more - for small cohorts under the 2%.

We have no right to merge cohorts beyond 2%.

Why don't we merge all the Abrahamics? That would be a biasing, a propaganda, because we would hide some social issues. And that is not scientific.

Some atheists want to merge all the non-religious, in a single group, in order to present a falsely cohesive supergroup against the religious cohort (Gerrymandering).

God is the central person [or persons] in theism; theism is a religious hyponym = a hyponym of religion; not only forms of theism are religions; many non-theist religions exist, some are mildly theistic and non-personocratic [all possible combinations and weights exist; weight means level of strength of some value; not only black and white worldviews exist, and we shouldn't bias the surveys in a simplifying manner beneficial to some of the notions/ideas.

Being a non-personocrat / non-personocentrist at the cosmological level (atheist) is very different than being open to (the possibility of being true) of the violation of physics at some stage of the universe, and (open to possibility of holding true) to personocracy at the cosmological level (agnosticism).

Also indifference is as close to some religion as it is to atheism; except if we are in battle and we are separate in two pseudogroups: the religious and the non-religious.

note that: fusionist approach against the specific non-religious worldviews

St Patrick's, Sydney

It appears that Catholics are the largest formal Christian cohort in Australia. Perhaps St Patrick's, Sydney is a more appropriate image, since the building is the largest Christian structure in Australia. Any particular reason that St. Paul's has been used? I'm of neither faith, if that helps. Hanoi Road (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

unorthodox pie chart

Does the source for the pie chart support changing "other christian" to "other western christian" or whatever a better term for "non orthodox christian" would be? I want to put Orthodox separately, since it's relevant to some national policy isues, e.g. i want to be able to see whether more than half of the country still want me not buying beer on the Pope's definition of Good Friday? and generally, Orthodox and the rest of Christianity diverged earlier than Islam diverged, so it seems like a fairly meaningful distinction? Irtapil (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

…and no non-orthodox Christians, you don't get to tack on the Muslim and Mormon population to boost your support for your annual insistence on closing the pubs, even in majority Muslim or majority Mormon regions they often let Christians and Atheists drink.

come to think of it, where are the Mormons? it's not zero but it's not enough for a wedge. Are they "other Christian" or just "other"? and if they're other Christian would they count as a branch of western? do they use the same calendar?

(i'm not that obsessed with Friday beer, it's just an example.)

Irtapil (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Tone and point of view

Reading through this article, it could be said that it does not follow the standard encyclopedic tone, especially in the lead. Such sentences like this one, "Historically the percentage was far higher; now, the religious landscape of Australia is changing and diversifying" seem bulky and look like something that would be written in an essay. Reading through the first paragraph, it also seems that the lead is kind of a slam piece on Christianity (like in the example above). As such, I believe the lead needs to be re-written. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that's poorly written, but surely it's accurate. Hardly a slam piece. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Fastest growing

Te expression "fastest growing" is used five times in this article. I wish it wasn't. It's an ambiguous expression at best. A religion with one member who talks someone else into joining with him has a growth rate of 100%, making it the fastest growing religion in Australia. I will try to find better wording for those sections. If anyone else wants to try, please do so. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Merger of Christianity in chart Vs Census

Catholic and Protestant are different grouping on their census and the first sentence mention Christianity as the largest religion in Australia. Changing the pie on the census is not accurate. Changes to the grouping should be made for next census relating to results. Doremon764 (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Doremon764 your comment was very confusing. What exactly is the problem and what exactly is your suggested solution? Erp (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Erp sorry bout that. Was talking about the old graph, but the new pie does relate to the newest pole. Doremon764 (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

IPSOS poll figures.

A claim about the proportions of Australians who ARE Protestant/Evangelical or Catholic has just been added to the article, based on an IPSOS poll. My concern is twofold. What was the actual question asked? The survey results don't say. The wording of a question can make a huge difference to poll results. And how reliable is the poll? All we seem to have is the claim from IPSOS itself in the survey saying that "Samples in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the U.S. can be considered representative of their general adult populations under the age of 75." Can be considered by whom? IPSOS? HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This Talk page should be tidied up

Too much here is not current and is no longer relevant Craigmac41 (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Sadko (words are wind) 21:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Total fertility rates

I forgot to comment on this in my edit summary reversing a lot of no improvements. I restored this section Total fertility rates because the edit summary by IP called it eugenics and unsourced (both not true). TFR's gets used to project religious demographics into the future. I'm not a fan of this section because I don't know the Conversation and 2016 is outdated. If someone wants to remove or improve it, go ahead.

Total fertility rates

As of 2016, Buddhists (1.68), Hindus (1.81) and the non-religious (1.84) had the lowest fertility rates. Christians (2.11) and Jews (2.17) had moderate fertility rates, and Muslims had the highest rate at 3.03. Rolluik (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)