Talk:Irreligion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Puerto Rico is not a country.

Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States of America, like the US Virgin Islands, which was not included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.245.6.130 (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Demographics

It says " For example, 67.5% of the Swedish population belongs to Lutheran Christian Church."

Most people in Sweden identify as Christian. That even if they do not believe Jesus was the son of God or a single word in the Bible. Only 10% of the population believe in a personal God (e.g. Yahweh) according to the World Values Survey, while as many as 70-80% consider themselves Christian.

Having that said, most people in Sweden do not know that they "belong" to the Lutheran Christian Church. "Lutheran Christian Church" is virtually never uttered in Sweden. You say "the Church" or "the State Church." If you would ask them to specify what that church is, the question would make no sense to most of them.

Terminology

For your information: Talk:Irreligion in the United States#New name.
DLG-34-34-87 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC).

I believe there is an error in the map. Australia is colored darker than the United States, though its score is lower on the chart. What's the best way to regenerate the map to ensure correct coloration?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Irreligion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090429233307/https://worldview.gallup.com/signin/login.aspx to https://worldview.gallup.com/signin/login.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050411233106/http://www.statssa.gov.za:80/census01/Census/Database/Census%202001/Census%202001.asp to http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/Census/Database/Census%202001/Census%202001.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Citations in lead section

WP:LEADCITE (bold added) "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement." Editor2020 (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Removing citations from lede is far too often a way of hiding editor bias & restricting comprehensiveness. Also, there's little to this article besides the lede--JimWae (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

POV: Why is this article listed in the Christianity Portal?

It is an article about irreligion, right? So why is it in the Christianity protal and not the Islam portal, not the Judaism portal, not the Hinduism portal, not any other religion's portal. This is very curious and very telling -- the authors have a special bile to dish out at their favorite religion to hate -- the one that it is safe to degrade in public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.111 (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Three points:

• New sections go at the bottom of the page.
• Before you rant about a vast conspiracy of Wikipedians against some religion, take a closer look.
• This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Have you put for the least bit of effort to try to improve what you criticize so harshly? Cresix (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is ranting, you did not answer the question. Why is this in the Christianity portal? I also learned something about the people who devote their lives to the wiki -- they like edit wars, and for that reason, the persons who linked this article to Christianity need to remove the portal link themselves, and frankly, I do not appreciate or want to participate in the barracks-lawyer subculture of "wikipedians", so why is the Christianity portal here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.112 (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Pls see WP:WikiProject coordinationMoxy (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Anon 196.12.203.112, if you do not "want to participate", there's a very simple solution: go away and leave Wikipedia alone. Cresix (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No thank you, I will use it on my terms. So again, why is the Christianity portal link still up on the talk page and why is it relevant? Since you appear to have no answer for that and since you refused to justify the link the Christianity portal, I removed it from the talk page. That is an improvement in your book, correct? So please do not restore the Christianity portal link on the talk page unless you are willing to link the article to every other religion as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.112 (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You may read Wikipedia on your terms, but you will not edit Wikipedia on your terms. If you choose to edit Wikipedia, you will do so on Wikipedia's terms (i.e., Wikipedia's policies and procedures) or you will be blocked from editing. Cresix (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion of the project banner. Banners are placed by members of the projects to assess articles connected to the subject of the project. This banner was placed by a member of WikiProject Christianity (a user who by the way self-proclaims as a Christian on their user page). You could ask the user or on the Wikiproject why they have chosen to include this article in their scope, but please do not remove the banner without the permission of the project. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello User:Saddhiyama, I added the banner because I added information about Christians who identify themselves as nonreligious. Apparently, this information has been removed although I am unsure why this was done, especially when this school of thought has given rise to popular videos such as Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus. If the information is restored in the article, it makes sense to keep the banner. If you decide not to, then feel free to remove it. I'll let you all decide whether the information is worth restoring or not. Have a nice day! With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Anupam. At this point there is no consensus to remove the banner, so it will remain. Cresix (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Then for consistency, it needs to be linked to every other religion's portal as well. The impression is that irreligion is simply a rejection/reaction of Christianity only. I think that Anupam's discourse here does not indicate that there is a warrant for Christianity remaining. In addition, Christianity can be accessed through the overall religion portal put above anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.103 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I repeat: There is no consensus to remove it here. If you want to discuss adding it to other portals, feel free to suggest that at the respective talk pages, but do not try to take ownership and make a unilateral decisions without regard to other opinions and the consensus process. Cresix (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You are simply asserting that there is no consensus. It is clear from the discourse of the person who added the link to the portal that he or she is fine with it being removed. For some reason, you are more attached to linking the talk page with Christianity, why is that exactly? Then it is incumbent on you to be fair and add the pages yourself, unless it is YOUR agenda to associate irreligion with Christianity, and thereby take the same ownership that you claim wish to prevent me from asserting. The only person here making any unilateral judgements is you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.103 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no desire to edit anything, those who put up nonsense should be the ones removing it. The reality is as it stands, irreligion is associated ONLY with Christianity. This is a SERIOUS POV issue and those who put the portal link need to address this question. It does NOT logically follow that one group of Christians' views should lead to this portal link being placed in the talk page to the exclusion of all other religions. It is frankly speaking an attempt to frame the article in a manner that targets one religion, and that is not acceptable at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.103 (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no desire to edit anything: Your choice to edit or just gripe and make wild accusations of an anti-religion conspiracy. Cresix (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hardly wild, look at your insistence on keeping ONLY Christianity linked, even when the original author indicates a far more flexible attitude. You have four choices: 1) Exiting this discussion and keeping your intellectual honesty, 2) insisting that Christianity alone be linked to irreligion on the talk page, without providing a reason, or 3) Adding the remaining religins yourself, or 4) Providing a valid reason for the inclusion of only one religion's portal on the discussion page. That some Christians do not believe that they follow a religion is no such thing. And I am making "wild accusations of an anti-religion conspiracy," where did I use that term? This is a naked attempt at argumentum ad hominem. Finally, using words like Gripe suggest some serious projection issues on your part and are also ad hominem. You still have not answered the basic POV issue -- why Christianity ALONE?

And a final point before checking off on this obviously futile discussion -- you suggested that I should make a change and then saw to it that it is reverted. And after that, you suggested that I should be blocked. In light of this barracks-lawyer culture of yours, why would any sane person edit anything? You way of being is fascinating in and of itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.103 (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that you remove the banner without a consensus. I suggested that you consider editing Wikipedia (which includes talk page discussion). That was not a license to assume ownership and make unilateral decisions without consideration of others' opinions. And while we're on the topic of suggestions, I also suggest that you be careful about the personalized comments in discussions. Comment on the issues, not the editors. Personal attacks can also get you blocked. Cresix (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, I will leave the page as is as was my first position, and you can claim "victory." Enjoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.103 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not a competition. It is supposed to be a discussion about the community's opinions about the banner. Cresix (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It may not have been a competition, but discussion cannot take place with threats of blockade and other forms of argumentum ad baculum. A competition would be fairer than this. It is simply become a matter of who can use the rule book as a tool and not only that use it without addressing the issue. I do not believe in touching work others have done, and the subsequent events showed why. I suggest that since what I said is not of value in your view, you go ahead and delete this thread ... I will have no objection whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.103 (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I am seeing no block threats at all, however you did start out your OP by stating that "This is very curious and very telling -- the authors have a special bile to dish out at their favorite religion to hate -- the one that it is safe to degrade in public". An example of bad faith as well as an accusation that obviously had no foundation in reality. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The "threats of blockade" were for your violation of policies and your threat to violate policy ("I will use it on my terms"), not for normal discussion here. Cresix (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing further to say, goodnight and goodbye, permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.103 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@IP - Sorry for this ruff intro to Wikipedia - As for being able to contribute to Wikipedia all are welcome ...and encouraged to review our HELP topics to get started. See Help:Contents - You may also wish to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Morocco where you will find editors from your country who can help with editing. To quote our policy about the banner above = If a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article. If you believe Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity is in error pls bring that up at the project.Moxy (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian percentage does not stand

I read that around 42% of Ukrainians do not consider religion as part of their lives in this article. I have also read on the article "Christianity by country" that 91% or more of the Ukrainian population is Christian. I am not sure what definition you use for "irreligion" but the two articles' numbers do not match. I am guessing the article on Ukraine's irreligion is wrong as the source used for Ukraine's numbers is Dentsu. While Dentsu might be useful for the East Asian countries I am very doubtful of its accuracy on Ukraine and other Slavic countries. I would appreciate if someone could look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.186.135 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not the 18th Century/POV pusing

Here and at irreligion by country there's a POV evident pushing deism as an element of the list at that article "(encompassing atheism, agnosticism, ignosticism, antireligion, skepticism, freethought, antitheism, apatheism, non-belief, secular humanism, or deism)". It's not. It's a form of spirituality. The Pew question "Do you believe in a god or universal spirit" properly captures this. The lame support for it here apparently is some state of affairs in the eighteenth century. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Importance of religion by country

This seems to duplicate the demographics section in Irreligion Dougweller (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe your mistaken - did you mean the article Irreligion by country should be merged? As Importance of religion by country is about how much people believe religion is important in there daily lives. This articles data is about people who identify as being not religious as with the article Irreligion by country. Moxy (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to (and have) withdrawn it as an error, but I took a break for breakfast, etc. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Difficulties in measuring irreligion and religiosity

I see some discussion here on accuracy of numbers, and in general surveys there is wide variation in numbers. This depends in large part on how the question is asked. Religiosity, as referenced in the top part of the article, is hardly the same as belief. Asking if you go to a church/synogogue/mosque regularly is not the same as asking if you believe in a higher power.

In many aspects, religion is as much a cultural identity as it is a belief in a diety. Being a Jew is different than being Jewish. That might be the issue of Azerbaijani - 99% might call themselves Muslim, because they know they're not Christian or Jew, but that doesn't necessarily mean they pray 5 times a day. What about non-practicing people who still feel there is some form of life after death, or follow horoscopes? Each survey, unless done by the same group with the same questions the same way is likely to yield different results and probably not comparable to each other. This should be addressed in some form in the article. Nerfer (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Off topic chat

Silent consent is open to be used to abuse Don't put me down as 'non-religion' in statistics, I have no religion or that I am 100% certain there is no God, you might as well ask me do I believe in pink elephants? Nonsensical, though interesting concepts for fiction. I am certain there are more people who are put in the 'non religion' bracket when they are like me and find all the choices interesting but unnecessary. I would say many would be unsure about the existence of God which does differ from mine and others position. Pretty certain these kind of silent consent can be massively abused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.105.188 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their respective articles, not for general discussion of the topics. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Azerbaijan percentage way off.

According to this article, >70% of Azerbaijanis are non-religious, but the article on Azerbaijan says 95% of the country is Muslim. One of those is wrong, and I'm guessing it's this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.187.148.226 (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't actually base articles on guesswork, and I'd point out that there is nothing to prevent anyone being both nominally Muslim, and indifferent to it - which is one of the definitions of 'irreligion' our article offers. Our article on Religion in Azerbaijan describes it as being "of the most irreligious countries in the world", which is justified by a Gallup Poll which apparently reports (the link doesn't seem to find the relevant data) that around 50% of the Azerbaijani population saw religion as having little or no importance in their lives. Now, 70% and 50% are two different figures, but either way, there are clearly a lot of nominally-Muslim Azerbaijanis who fit into an 'irreligious' category. As it happens, I think that the 'Irreligion in the world' table in this article is of little real utility, given that it combines data from multiple sources that may very well be defining 'irreligion' differently, and may not always be particularly reliable - but broadly speaking, in the case of Azerbaijan, it appears not to be wildly inaccurate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Since when self-reporting is considered as a reliable source of information in Wikipedia? Would you trust a poll that asked people their daily calorie intake? --80.174.254.162 (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between ethnicity/culture, and religiousness. Being Muslim doesn't necessarily mean you practice it, both of those numbers may be correct, depending on how the question was asked. Nerfer (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

An unsigned edit by 66.67.31.66 on 16 September changed Azerbaijan from >70% to 0.8%, and removed the Gallup reference which supported >70% and replaced it with a Pew research centre report which claims 99.2% of the population is Muslim. Given the proceeding discussion, and that this figure seems to be wildly contentious, perhaps it's best to remove Azerbaijan from the list altogether? miracleworker5263 (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

US numbers do not match up

After reading source 22: Unaffiliated on the rise in the U.S. the numbers for the U.S. do not stand it says in the article that just under 20% are either agnostic or atheist. Also do agnostics really count as irreligious. The basic theme of agnostic is that they recognize the possibility of a deity/ies but also recognize the possibility that a deity/ies may not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.179.120.189 (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Turkey's percentage and place on the list

That 2.5% is only the people who identify as atheist/agnostic but, 73% of Turkish citizens who identify as "Muslim" (cultural Muslim) are irreligious according to this study.

WIN-Gallup International's Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.141.222 (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Irreligion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150116043952/http://www.minorityrights.org/3273/normative-instruments/ccpr-general-comment-22-300793-on-iccpr-article-18.html to http://www.minorityrights.org/3273/normative-instruments/ccpr-general-comment-22-300793-on-iccpr-article-18.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723210828/http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview/archives/2002/2/dav2.pdf to http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview/archives/2002/2/dav2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016062403/http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf to http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221184947/http://www.czso.cz/sldb2011/eng/redakce.nsf/i/tab_7_1_population_by_religious_belief_and_by_municipality_size_groups/%24File/PVCR071_ENG.pdf to http://www.czso.cz/sldb2011/eng/redakce.nsf/i/tab_7_1_population_by_religious_belief_and_by_municipality_size_groups/%24File/PVCR071_ENG.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303221342/http://www.membres.lycos.fr/instantanesdalbanie/image/dossierdepresse.pdf to http://www.membres.lycos.fr/instantanesdalbanie/image/dossierdepresse.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016062403/http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf to http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908233718/http://kosis.nso.go.kr:7001/ups/chapterRetrieve.jsp?pubcode=MA&seq=292&pub=3 to http://kosis.nso.go.kr:7001/ups/chapterRetrieve.jsp?pubcode=MA&seq=292&pub=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016062403/http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf to http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160115132325/http://fowid.de/fileadmin/datenarchiv/Religionszugehoerigkeit/Religionszugehoerigkeit_Bevoelkerung_Deutschland_2014.pdf to http://fowid.de/fileadmin/datenarchiv/Religionszugehoerigkeit/Religionszugehoerigkeit_Bevoelkerung_Deutschland_2014.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150510104033/http://www.latinobarometro.org/latNewsShow.jsp to http://www.latinobarometro.org/latNewsShow.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061129162918/http://www.inec.gob.ni/censos2005/ResumenCensal/Resumen2.pdf to http://www.inec.gob.ni/censos2005/ResumenCensal/Resumen2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Germany data

Since the percentage of non-religious in Germany has been changed to 55%, to place it with Sweden and the Netherlands, it may have been a confusion, because in this provided reference [1] in a pdf document "Zu den neuen Kategorien 2017: Die religionspolitische Dimension von Statistik" says clearly Catholics at 23,9%; Protestants 22,6; Muslim 4; Jewish 0,1; Hinduism 0,11%; Budism 0,27; Esotericism 0,9%; Orthodox 1,6 and None religion at 26,03% (see the table of the page 3), and for more in the table of the page 8 say 24,6 millions of catholic, 23,9 evangelicals adn 27 millions without religion.--186.151.60.76 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no confusion and the reference to cars is for here and pertains to the article because in it there is a section which confirms that non-religious people in Germany make up at least 55%.CindyRoleder (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please, could you indicate in which page there is where it says that more than half of Germans are none-religious?. I thought that you had taken from German-wikipedia, but even themselves have stated that 34-36% of Germans are not religious. [2] [3] --186.151.60.140 (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Germany data

I have put Germany at 59% non-religious because 34% is based on membership not on actual belief and that would create an imbalance between countries and give a distorted image of belief by country because the references cited and the percentages given regarding other countries are based on actual belief not on membership and that's why they are higher but if we include only those who are unaffiliated as non-religious as it is the case if we put Germany at 34% then many other countries who score high on this table would be even much lower than 34% and for example some countries' percentages are based on the Phil Zuckerman study where Germany ties Estonia at 49% and yet the irony is that here Estonia goes up at the top at over 70% whilst Germany goes down at the bottom at 34% which doesn't make any sense at all given the fact that according to the Eurobarometer Poll Germany and Estonia have basically the same number of non-believers and according to Phil Zuckerman Azerbaijan isn't even in the top 50 list and it has virtually less than 2% non-believers but on this article its 51% result is based on the WIN-Gallup International Association Poll the 2014 version of which puts Germany at the summit of the Atheism Scale at 59% and I have cited this founded, credible and reliable source in order to confirm that yes Germany should be at 59% non-religious and obviously not 34% for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingKicks (talk • contribs) 15:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Germany data

The claim that only 34-36% of Germans are non-religious on the German Wikipedia is based on membership not on actual belief and if you continue reading through the Religion in Germany article both in the German and even the English Wikipedia it clearly states that non-religious people in Germany make up at least 55% and the most recent 2014 WIN-Gallup International Association Poll has also confirmed that at least 59% of Germans are non-religious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingKicks (talk • contribs) 15:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the WIN-Gallup International site you will see end of year surveys for:

• 2013
• 2014
• 2015
• 2016

So clearly the 2014 poll cannot be the most recent poll. According to the 2016 end of year poll, table 40 21% of Germans considered themselves as atheist or agnostic.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@FlyingKicks: you claim that the following source states that Germany is 59% non-religious. Please show the sentence where this is stated.

"Losing our religion? Two thirds of people still claim to be religious" (PDF). WIN Gallup International. April 13, 2015. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Toddy1, thank you. http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/290/file/290.pdf does not mention Germany. JimRenge (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Link to "Konfessionslosigkeit"

I linked "Irreligion" to the German "Konfessionslosigkeit" because 1. there were no German links already present and 2. the German page (literally: "confessionlessness" or "without belief-ness") is accurate and 3. The German page was also unlinked. If anybody objects, this can be changed back but I think it's appropriate to connect these pages.-Ich (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Non-theism or Nontheism

Do people prefer the spelling: "non-theism" or "nontheism"? The Wikipedia article that it links to is called Nontheism.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked sock. --IamNotU (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Germany and Singapore data Germany should be 59% non-religious and the below reference clearly confirms this true reality whilst Singapore should be 18.5% non-religious because all figures should be in single percentages not within ranges of course:- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/14/map-these-are-the-worlds-least-religious-countries/77.71.210.138 (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC) This was already discussed above in another section. Relying heavily on WIN/Gallup data is questionable since researchers that have reviewed global demographics of atheism and nonreligion, like Ariela Keysar's paper in the "Oxford Handbook of Atheism", have shown that some of WIN/Gallup's numbers are overblown because other more reliable surveys like the World Values Surveys have used the exact same wording for decades and have consistently reached lower figures of nonreligous and atheists globally. (Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC) I know that this was already discussed above in another section and the conclusion is that Germany should be 59% non-religious and Singapore should be 18.5% non-religious because relying strongly on WIN/Gallup data is safe, consistent and unquestionable and whilst there may have been researchers who have shown that the WIN/Gallup numbers are overblown there have also certainly been other researchers who have shown that the same WIN/Gallup numbers are real and whilst they might not be necessarily more reliable we must also note that figures of non-religious and atheists globally from other surveys are not always lower but sometimes they are just the same or even higher as well and if we are going to use the World Values Surveys in order to downgrade the percentage of Germany then we must use the same source in order to downgrade the percentage of other countries as well because otherwise it wouldn't make any sense since we must keep in mind that some of the countries' percentages given in this article are higher than those indicated in the WIN/Gallup data for the same countries and if we don't use the same method for all countries then of course it won't be fair at all since whatever reference we consult we can always see that Germany is always on toale and here ip of the atheism sct should be 59% as the WIN/Gallup data is basically correct and Singapore should be just 18.5% because it must have a single figure like all other countries and of course it wouldn't be right to put a range on 1 or 2 countries when all others have a single percentage.77.71.210.138 (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Per the section above on Germany, there was no consensus for the add you made. The consensus was for removing it. It was reverted by other editors in the past. You also are not abiding by wikipedia protocol which is for there to be a consensus here before making any changes to the article when other editors have already disputed it. I suspect that you are User:CindyRoleder, who was already banned for multiple sock puppetry, since you are the only one that keeps on overrelying on WIN/Gallup and also trying to change the numbers for Germany. Furthermore, even WIN/Gallup's data from 2016 shows that only 21% were Atheist/Agnostic [4] see page 40. From their 2012 survey, WIN/Gallup also says on page 3 of their earlier report [5]: Germany 51% (religious) 33% (not religious) 15% (convinced atheist) 1% (i don't know). You still do not get 59% off of this. The Washington Post report seems to have made a mistake since Germany is not in the source they used from WIN/Gallup. Washington Post cited [6] and that has no mention of Germany let alone 59%. Other sources that are available on Germany show that 36% of Germans are non-religious [7] or even the World Values Survey (2010-2014 wave) shows that only about 38% of Germans are nonreligious (Keysar, Ariela. "2. Religious/Non-Religious Demography". The Oxford Handbook of Secularism.) This is why overellying on WIN/Gallup (which has only done 2 waves) is problematic. The numbers can be overblown due to their limited methods and small sample sizes (China for example is overblown there too per Ariela Keysar's review of global studies on atheism and nonreligion). World Values Surveys have been done for more than 30 years with consistently lower numbers with the exact same wording as WIN/Gallup. Also I have head that the census of 2011 in Germany shows that 66.8% of Germans are Christians [8] (see page 10) on world religions. So there is a good case that WIN/Gallup numbers are indeed overblown for Germany compared to other more extensive studies.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC) I am another user not User:CindyRoleder and I was never banned for sock puppetry and there are many people that rely very well on the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association polls as well and the numbers for Germany in reality should be changed because according to the 2012 poll it is 48%, according to the 2015 poll it is 59% and according to the 2017 poll it is 60% so therefore it is definitely much more than 34%. If you rely on WIN/Gallup's data from 2016 and make it 21% you should do that for other countries as well not just for Germany and if you do that the numbers would be much lower than presented in this article basically for all countries not just for Germany and 21% is not correct because that is most probably based on affiliation not on belief. The 2012 survey of the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association states that Germany is 48% non-religious not 34% anyway and in 2015 you get 59% and in 2017 you get 60% which is as much as Estonia which is basically on top of the list of this article. The Washington Post did not make a mistake because the source that they used from the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association is the poll itself not the other page so therefore you do get 59% because the poll does mention both Germany and 59% of course. It is true that other sources that are available for Germany show that 36% of Germans are non-religious and that the World Values Survey shows that 38% of Germans are non-religious but in that case you must cite these sources for other countries as well not just for Germany and these sources also state much lower figures for all other countries not just for Germany and if Germany is 36% or 38% not religious then many other countries who are above Germany in this article would be less than 36% according to the same sources so therefore in that case those countries should be put below Germany by citing these sources which indicated that they are much less than 36% and we would still have Germany at the very top and in any case the issue behind all this is that we should act fairly and use the same sources for all countries not use different sources for multiple countries. Moreover lying very well on the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association polls is safe and not problematic because the surveys by the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association have been done in a very intelligent, mature and responsible way and they reflect the true reality and the real numbers to the full of course. The numbers are not overblown and all sources can have limited methods and low sample groups not just the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association and in any case if the numbers are overblown for Germany and China they can also be overblown for all other countries as well and yet on this page there are many countries with percentages which are much higher than the percentages cited on the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association poll for the same countries so therefore if the percentage for Germany is reduced due to the possibility of being overblown then the percentage must be reduced for all other countries not just for Germany in order for the version to make good sense. It is true that the World Values Survey has been done for more than 30 years with consistently lower numbers with the exact same wording as the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association but in that case we must use the same lower numbers for all countries not just for Germany as it is wrongly done in this article. The census of 2011 in Germany does show that 66.8% of Germans are Christians but the censuses of the same year in basically all other European countries show figures much higher than 66.8% for Christians and if you look at the articles "Christianity in Europe", "Christianity by Country" and "Religions by Country" the percentage of Christians in Germany is one of the lowest in Europe and even in the world so therefore by the same reasoning there are many countries which are put above Germany in this article which in reality should be put below Germany not above Germany if you make an attentive reference to the country censuses regarding the percentage of Christians for each country. It could be that the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association numbers are indeed overblown for Germany compared to other more extensive studies but in that case that would hold true for all other countries not just for Germany and the numbers of all countries would be overblown not just the numbers of Germany and if we rely on other so called more extensive studies the numbers of the other countries should be lowered just like the numbers of Germany and by using this method we would still have Germany at the very top of the Atheism Scale even though the Worldwide Independent Network is a very reliable source and 59% non-religious for Germany is a fully correct figure anyway.217.71.190.216 (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC) This response is similar to what User:CindyRoleder argued before. Incredibly similar actually. Overdefending WIN/Gallup was her main trait and also the obsession with Germany. Clearly it is her. Considering that academics have already warned about WIN/GIA, I am puzzled as to why this is the only source that she cares about and defends like crazy. Actually WIN/Gallup no longer exists either, which shows that it was not that good to keep it running in the first place. Furthermore it was a marketing firm, not an academic survey like WVS or others out there. I would say WVS values should be used in the article more because they have decades worth of data and they are an academic survey. If other sources do not converge with WIN/Gallup's overblown number, then Win/Gallup should be ignored for that country. The 2011 German Census, the WVS, and CIA Factbook converge on 30 something % nonreligious independent of each other. So these three sources alone provide independent verification of each other whereas WIN/GIA is completely off. What is retarded is that WIN/GIA used the exact same wording as the WVS and the numbers were way off for WIN/GIA! Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC) I agree with Huitzilopochtli1990, reliable sources cited in [9] show that 59% non-religious for Germany is not plausible. JimRenge (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC) We are two different people but we just seem to agree and have a similar opinion and that is all. I care about all sources not just the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association and I am not defending anything like crazy. I totally agree with Huitzilopochtli1990 that the World Values Survey should be used in the article more and I know that it has decades worth of data and that it is an academic survey but if the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association should be ignored for Germany then it should be ignored for all other countries because other sources do not converge with the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association's overblown numbers for all other countries as well. It could be that Germany is only 30 something % non-religious but in that case there are virtually no countries with over 40% so therefore the table must be arranged in another way in that case anyway because in such a scenario the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association would be off for all countries not just for Germany. I may agree with JimRenge that 59% non-religious for Germany is not plausible as well but in that case 75% for the Czech Republic, 70% for Estonia, 68% for the Netherlands, 63% for Vietnam, 61% for Denmark, 54% for Sweden, 52% for Albania, 52% for Japan, 51% for Azerbaijan and 51% for China are definitely not plausible either and the Censuses, the World Values Survey and the Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook certainly give much lower figures for all these respective countries just like they do for Germany as well so therefore the table does not correspond to the true and actual reality like this either of course.213.217.193.134 (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC) I looked over how many times WIN/Gallup is used as a source for any country in this article. Only 4 or 5 countries have it as a source on the table. The majority of countries on the table do not use WIN/Gallup as a source for their numbers. So I think that the issue is not big at all. WIN/Gallup is not used prominent here so there really is no basis for saying that the numbers would have to be changed for many countries. Looks like alarmism. Non-religiosity is not easy to measure in the first place, but most countries have census, government, or Pew Research or other better sources already and they show how many people do not affiliate with a religion. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC) There is no great issue and it is not alarmism but the numbers do have to be changed for many countries because other sources may also have overblown figures not just the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association and the Censuses, the World Values Survey and the Central Intelligence Agency do present much lower figures than those given in this article as well and I know that it is not that easy to measure non-religiosity accurately and the government and the Pew Research Center never give the same figures presented in this article as well and the figures of this article do not correspond to other articles on Wikipedia either and for example the Eurobarometer Poll has no countries with more than 40% who say that they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force and Germany is among the most non-religious countries there as well and for example the below source says that Germany is only 36% non-religious but it also gives much lower figures for the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom, South Korea, New Zealand, Finland, Japan, Hungary, Australia, Spain, China, Russia, Taiwan, Uruguay, Italy, Israel, Ireland, the USA, Mexico and India and yet many of these countries have unrealistic figures of well above 40% in this article when in reality they are 35% or less and as clearly indicated in this reference according to credible sources Germany would still be at the top of the Atheism scale even with about 36% non-religious:- https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201510/how-many-atheists-are-there217.71.190.216 (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a place to determine "true" numbers of religious or nonreligious people since different surveys provide different numbers depending on the questions they ask (it is not clear which studies overestimate or which ones underestimate). Keep in mind that these numbers are estimates only. At best we can only reflect what the reliable sources say and leave it at that. Zuckerman is already used in a few countries and other sources on the table look reliable and provide different figures. The table looks good for now since it is properly sourced with reliable sources for the most part. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia would be a better place if it determines true numbers of religious and non-religious people and even though different surveys provide different numbers depending on the questions they ask it is still clear which studies overestimate and which studies underestimate because we can always interpret the questions asked well and take good note of the numbers provided and if the numbers estimated give a clear image of the true reality it would be much better for everybody. If we reflect on what the reliable sources say we can give realistic data and the table on this article does not do that at all. If Zuckerman is a reliable source then it should be used for all countries not just for a few countries because otherwise it would not be fair and while reliable sources can provide different figures because of different questions asked the table presented on this article does not reflect what the reliable sources say either. The table is not good at all because if it does not correspond with the data given in the reliable sources then it is not properly sourced and in order to be properly sourced it must at least use the same sources for all countries not different sources for different countries and it would not be plausible to use exact figures for all countries and at the same time have ranges only for Germany and Singapore and just signs of less than 1% for Thailand and Bangladesh either. The sources below also indicate that Germany is clearly one of the most non-religious countries and here the same sources are used for all countries given and we do not have various sources for multiple countries because otherwise the method would not be correct and it would not give a reasonable estimate of the real situation:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Countries-involved-number-of-participants-per-country-and-percentage-of-self_tbl1_270216983 http://www.irtiqa-blog.com/2012/09/friday-journal-club-religiosity-of.html217.71.190.216 (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC) User CindyRoleder or 217.71.190.216, the table of this page uses neutral sources or percentages for all countries, several countries here (not only Germany) have other sources with higher number of nones or atheists, if you suggest that in Germany should be put the source with higher number non-religious, it would also have to be in all other countries, and several countries would have more than 65% of nones, for example accordign to Gustafson and Petterson 85% of swedesh, 83% of danish, 75% of norwayans, 74% of finnish and 72% of dutch are non-religious. According to the Harrys Poll, 66% of french people is either atehist or agnostic. PD. West Germany contain more than the double of population than the East. Greetings. --186.151.63.72 (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC) I am not contesting anything and everything is possible and what you are saying does make sense but reasonably Germany should be on top and much higher on the table and moreover the sources that you indicated do not mention Germany either and had they done so it would have certainly not been much lower than the figures that you gave. Moreover it is not plausible to use single figures for all other countries and a range only for Germany either and whilst it is true that West Germany is not as atheist as East Germany you also have to keep in mind that East Germany is by far and by any measure the most atheist country in the world and according to various credible sources basically no other countries reach even half the percentage of atheists of East Germany and if you combine West Germany and East Germany together Germany as a whole would still be on top of the atheism scale and according to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in December 2018 and indicated below only 10% of all Germans believe in God which is the lowest percentage among all countries surveyed in Europe:- http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/05/how-do-european-countries-differ-in-religious-commitment/141.8.119.87 (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC) Belief in God is not a good measure of religiosity or irreligiosity. It is only one variable among many in religiosity. And religiosity is not easy to measure in the first place. One problem with using this source is that it is only about "religious commitment", not overall religiosity (a hard number to measure in research). The source only uses numbers of the most fundamentalist choices such as "say religion is very important in their lives", "say they attend religious services at least monthly", "say they pray daily", and "say they believe in God with absolute certainty". These are the fundamentalist choices in the surveys out of many (e.g. moderate choices and softer choices). There are softer questions that Pew always asks such as praying weekly or monthly, attending religious services a few times a year, believing in God with some or less certainty. These are not used in the source. The Pew source only says 10% "they believe in God with absolute certainty". The numbers for believing in God with some certainty, believing in God with less certainty, not being sure if God exists, and certainly not believing in God at all are not mentioned. The source itself does not rank Germany as the least religious commitment overall either - it is 26 out of 34 countries. In any case, this new IP 141.8.119.87 is for sure User CindyRoleder, who has been banned from wikipedia. She is the only one to keep on contributing to this talk age section about Germany. The article will stay as is. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC) Everybody can think whatever they want but in reality belief in God is the only good measure of religiosity and irreligiosity and it is technically the one and only most important variable in religiosity and irreligiosity because people who believe in God are religious and people who do not believe in God are irreligious and atheists. Religiosity and irreligiosity are not very easy to measure and that is true but you can still take an idea of the general situation and have a clear picture based on good research and religious commitment means overall religiosity as well and there is basically no difference between one and the other either. The fundamentalist choices are the most fundamental and decisive issues that measure overall religiosity as well. Those who believe in God would believe in God with absolute certainty and if they do not do that the philosophy would actually mean that they do not believe in god and that they would be irreligious and atheists because people simply either believe or do not believe in God and it is just one or the other and there is absolutely nothing in between. This means that according to this source Germany is the least religiously committed country of all countries surveyed and I cannot be always sure about other users with Wikipedia accounts but in any case I have never been banned from Wikipedia myself anyway. If not everybody agrees with me I will just accept and respect everybody's opinion and that is it but there are other people who keep contributing to this talk page section about Germany as well and I am not alone and for me it is not a problem that there are other users who have some different views about this issue either. The article can stay as is if you want but based on extensive research, obvious evidence, clear proof and even more information from other Wikipedia articles themselves related to religion and atheism by country the content of this article does not reflect the true reality at all.217.71.190.216 (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC) The end of survey results used for Germany are not used for other countries either and if this is done then all other countries would have much lower percentages and Germany would be relatively at the very top of the Atheism Scale anyway.217.71.190.216 (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Yep it is the sock puppet User:CindyRoleder who has been blocked permanently with the same arguments as before (obsession over atheism and Germany and overreliance on WIN/GIA (even uses the lingo of "Atheism scale"), and poor understanding of religion or sociology of religion). Will keep an eye on this IP and any related activity to block again if necessary. End of story. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC) You can believe and think whatever you want about the sock puppetry but I have never been blocked from anything and my arguments are right and I do not have an obsession but I just say facts the way they are and this article does not make any sense. I do not over-rely on the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association either because basically all sources that I have ever read except this article puts Germany among the least religious countries in the world and in many cases it is even put as the least religious of them all. There is nothing wrong with using the lingo of Atheism Scale either because it is used by many very good references and it makes perfect sense as well. I have a very rich understanding of religion and sociology of religion as well because religion and sociology of religion are mainly, strongly and most importantly determined by the overall belief in God and even though some other factors may be put into consideration they are just relatively secondary issues. You can keep an eye on me and block me if you want but that is just your choice and it has nothing to do with the content of this article and there are many other percentages of many other countries which are totally ridiculous as well and not just the one of Germany and both above and below but that is irrelevant and you can block me if you want but I am not considering to try to make any edits but I am just using this talk page to stress the point that this article is false, its table is ludicrous and that these percentages are completely wrong and against the real picture of the true reality and that is all anyway as well of course:-). I also fully respect your opinion to the full and I have nothing against anybody and I really accept everybody's view on everything but this article simply does not reflect the true reality about irreligion in the respective countries and this is a state of fact. On the other hand the article "List of countries by irreligion" for example does give a much better indication of the real situation because it puts Germany as 60% non-religious and among the most atheist countries in the world which is a fact and the issue that it refers to the surveys by the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association is irrelevant because basically all sources except this article puts Germany as one of the most atheist countries in the world and not just the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association and as I have already said before you can just believe and think whatever you want like everybody else but that issue has nothing to do with the subject anyway:-).217.71.190.216 (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC) You have repeated yourself many times already but you certainly have not convinced the editors here of changing anything in the article. The Census data from Germany says otherwise by the way. Wikipedia is not a forum or an academic source. It is also not about painting a picture of reality, it is an encyclopedia - a collection of views on particular issues. Please take your material elsewhere. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC) I am right and there are many people who agree with me and I even know some of them personally but if the editors of this article do not want to change it that is not a problem:-). The Census data from Germany says something like maybe 37-38% non-religious and that is not 21-34% either and 37-38% non-religious would still be among the highest in the world as well because very few countries have census data of more than 40% non-religious and the ridiculous numbers of this article do not reflect this fact either. An encyclopedia should paint a picture of reality as well but if you do not agree with me I fully respect and totally accept your opinion as well:-). I am not using the talk page to try to dictate to the editors to change this article but I just want to drive the point that the percentages of this article are completely false so therefore my material can be taken here just like it can be taken elsewhere but if you do not agree with me or have a different view on the issue or see the subject with a diverse opinion and as a result want to keep the article like this I have no problem with it and I just accept your position and that is it but I just want to make everything clear to everybody and that is all.217.71.190.216 (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC) The content of this article is totally contradictory as well because in the table it puts Sweden as 54% non-religious and Albania as 52% non-religious and in the same demographics section it also states that 68% of Swedes are Christians and 59% of Albanians are religious and I know for sure that both Sweden and Albania would be much lower than Germany's Census figure of 38% non-religious if we had to be realistic.217.71.190.216 (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC) I have also read on several different credible sources that 100% in Azerbaijan believe in God and yet this article ridiculously lists Azerbaijan as 51% non-religious whilst East Germany has even been described as the most Godless place on Earth and Germany as a whole has always been rated as one of the least religious if not the least religious country in the world. The capital city of Germany which is Berlin has even been described as the atheist capital of Europe and the world capital of atheism with at least 64% of Berlin residents being non-religious and atheists and this true reality is even confirmed in the Wikipedia article called "Religion in Berlin" whilst the Wikipedia article called "Religion in Azerbaijan" even goes to the extent of quoting the Pew Research Center of 2009 which says that 99.2% of all Azerbaijani citizens are Muslims and it is obviously clear that by reason and logic basically the table of this article is completely against what people in all listed countries really believe.217.71.190.216 (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC) For sure, The rest of articles says that Germany is one of least religious with 59% because you are editing them (Specially fr.wiki, es.wiki and it.wiki). Since you put this reference saying that "88% of German people do not believe in God" , you showed that this topic affect you terribly. I repeat you, the average of irreligion in West Germany is 25% and contains more than two thirds of German population, you say that Germany have least religious people than Sweden, but in WIN/GIA Gallup a source that you claim as "the trusth" , established that Sweden contanin a highest percent of nones and atheits than Germany, also, in this article is about irreligion not only atheism, so in Azerbajan only 1% do not believe in God the rest 49% is "none" in religious terms or "none practicants but believers", simply. Greetings. --186.151.62.200 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC) At the moment I am not editing anything and I am only refering to the other articles on the English Wikipedia that say that Germany is one of the least or even the least religious country in the world and they do not always necessarily say 59% and sometimes they say more and sometimes they say less but Germany would always be on top anyway because if Germany is for example let's say 30% no countries exceed 35% in the same article. No topics affect me terribly and when I put that source of the Pew Research Center I only put it to show that Germany should be on top of the irreligion table and I never said that it shows that "88% of German people do not believe in God" and I never used that phrase or the percentage of 88% either. The average irreligious rate of West Germany could be 25% like you said but it could be more or less as well and whatever it is 25% would still be very much on top because if we use 25% for West Germany the same sources used to indicate 25% for West Germany would not give the ridiculous numbers of the table of this article for the other countries either. The more than a quarter of the German population living in East Germany are basically the most irreligious people in the world on average and some sources even put the irreligious percentage of East Germany at over 90% and if you combine both West Germany and East Germany together in West Germany there are enough irreligious people in order to make Germany as a whole one of the most irreligious countries in the world anyway. I never said that I am sure that Germany has more irreligious people than Sweden but there are sources that say this just like there are sources that say the other way round but the table of this article puts Sweden as twice or thrice as irreligious as Germany which is definitely not true at all either. I never said that the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association is the infallible truth either but it does at least understand the fact that Germany is one of the least religious countries in the world and according to its 2017 survey Sweden and the Czech Republic are the only European Countries with a significantly higher irreligious population than Germany and no fixed and single source is the definitive truth but the fact that Germany is among the most non-religious and atheist countries on Earth is generally accepted. The fact that the article is about irreligion is irrelevant as well because irreligion and atheism basically mean exactly the same and if people are believers then by definition they are religious not irreligious and if they believe in God and they do not practice their religion if they have a religion they are still religious even though they do not practice it and the article on the English Wikipedia called "Religion in Azerbaijan" claims that 99% of people in Azerbaijan are Muslims not that 49% of people in Azerbaijan are "none" in religious terms. Practicing is irrelevant because there are even many people who believe in God ardently and are passionately religious and still do not practice their religion regularly and on a common basis but in any case the source below also clearly indicates that Germany has one of the lowest church attendance rates in Europe and even the world at less than 10%:- https://news.gallup.com/poll/13117/religion-europe-trust-filling-pews.aspx217.71.190.216 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC) The following Eurobarometer Poll of 2005 even states that Germany as a whole is only 25% Atheist not West Germany alone but it also states that Sweden is only 23% Atheist as well so therefore even if the percentages are relatively low they still put Germany among the top countries on the Atheism table and this credible source still agrees with me and confirms that I am right when I say that Germany is more Atheist than Sweden:- http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf217.71.190.216 (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC) You said this a month ago (the Pew Research Center in December 2018 and indicated below only 10% of all Germans believe in God which is the lowest percentage among all countries surveyed in Europe:- http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/05/how-do-european-countries-differ-in-religious-), I fround the 49% of non-practicants in Azerbaijan in the page Irreligion in Azerbaijan, in fact 90% of Azerbaijan people is Muslim (most are nominally). Non-religious and atheism is not the same completly, its like some one say that Catholic and Christianism are enterly the same (Atheism, like Agnosticism and Secular Humanist are branches of Irreligion). Your references still not asegurate that Germany is one of least religous countrie, according to the Eurobarometer (P.11) 12 countries have less percent of believers in God than Germany, and 5 have more percent of atheits. Germany have a little more atheits than Sweden, but the majority of Sweden is Agnostic (a branche of Irreligion) while nearly the half of Germans believe in God as of 2005. Mmm yep, you are editing in other languages . Greetings. --186.151.62.200 (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC) I did say that a month ago but I never mentioned 88% like you said anyway:-). It could be that 49% of people in Azerbaijan do not practice their religion but if they have a religion and they do not practice it they are still called religious and not non-religious anyway. I understand your point but we can say that Irreligion and Atheism are the same completely as well because Agnostics and Secular Humanists do not believe in God either so therefore technically they are by definition Atheists as well and that is what they are actually called anyway. I respect your opinion but my references do assure that Germany is one of the least religious countries and sometimes even the least of them all and not just one of the least and the Eurobarometer Poll of 2005 only has 5 countries which have less believers in God than Germany not 12 because only Atheists are not believers in God and the others are all believers in God and very religious because those who said that they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force are all definitive believers in God because believing in some sort of spirit or life force means believing in God and some sort of spirit or life force means a God and a God means some sort of spirit or life force and they both actually mean exactly the same and some people just wish to call it one way and some people just wish to call it the other way and that is all but they both mean religious believers. Germany definitely has more Atheists than Sweden and the majority of Swedes are religious not Agnostics because believing in some sort of spirit or life force means believing in God and being religious not Agnostic and as of the Eurobarometer Poll of 2005 more than half of Germans believe in God but the percentage in Sweden is even higher because some sort of spirit or life force means a God and they are both a divine entity or a supreme being and whether you call it one way or the other does not make a difference at all. I am not going to edit anything because there is no point in trying to engage in an edit warring and for example East Germany is regarded as the least religious country in the world according to all sources and according to the Eurobarometer Poll of 2005 it is the highest in the third column not the lowest in the first column and it has 57% Atheists and in second place comes France with 33% which is not even anywhere close and only the respondents of the third column are non-believers meaning non-religious meaning Atheists because the respondents of the first and second columns are both saying definitely and directly that they "believe" and there is absolutely no difference between a spirit or life force and a God and Germany with 25% Atheists is definitely on top and three out of the five countries that come before Germany only exceed Germany by 1% or 2% and not more and barely any country even exceeds 30% and of course this Eurobarometer Poll might not be exactly accurate but it does give you a very clear idea of the general situation on average and on the whole and yes Germany definitely is more non-religious than Sweden and Germany certainly is one of the least and in certain cases and some scenarios even the least religious country in Europe and even the world but if you want to think otherwise you are obviously free to do so because naturally nobody can ever control anybody else's mind anyway as well of course my good friend:-).217.71.190.216 (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC) The following source also says that Germany is the third least religious country in the world and only Australia and Sweden are ranked higher:- http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2017/11/sacerdotus-is-even-more-stupid-than_24.html217.71.190.216 (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC) And this graphical chart also ranks Germany as arguably the lowest in the world when it comes to religiosity:- https://wp-media.patheos.com/blogs/sites/492/2015/12/Stavrova_health_religion_norm.png217.71.190.216 (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC) There is also this map that fully indicates that only 9% of Germans pray which is surely among the lowest in the world and according to this map only the Brits and the Chinese are ranked lower in terms of prayer:- https://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/how-religious-commitment-varies-by-country-among-people-of-all-ages/pf-06-13-18_religiouscommitment-03-09/217.71.190.216 (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC) This table also shows that only 24% of Germans consider religion as important in their life which is the lowest among all countries surveyed and even lower than Belgium, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Russia, Switzerland and Hungary:- https://i.stack.imgur.com/kuR6q.png217.71.190.216 (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC) The map below also indicates very clearly that Germany is arguably the least religious country in Europe and even the world with at least 60-69% of Germans being non-religious and atheists and very very few other countries if any are even in the same category let alone above:- https://i.redd.it/6jmdi0ka3kk01.jpg217.71.190.216 (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC) In reality there is no discussion because I am not trying to influence anybody's opinion but at the same time I do not think that continuing to modify this page would be a problem because I would also like to point out that the English Wikipedia article called "Religion in Sweden" says that 70% of Swedes are Christians and the English Wikipedia article called "Religion in Germany" says that only 57% of Germans are Christians which is also very interesting and much more close to reality than this false article anyway:-).141.8.119.87 (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Aclaration´s point: the christiani´sm figure of Religion in Germany is about the population´s beliefs, while in Sweden is about of church inscripts. Accordgin to REMID more than 26% of Germans are inscripted in some Church. In Sweden less han 45% of population are indentified themelves as Christian when its about a survey of beliefs. CindyRoleder, you can´t proove anything and you obiously tried to change our mind for this topic. Greets. --186.151.62.72 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC) 186.151.62.72, if you wish to carry on a conversation with this blocked user, please do it outside of Wikipedia, not here, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Broken references

A lot of sources for countries in "Demographics" section point to this page, whick does not seem correct, since it only has data for Puerto Rico and not for Vietnam, China, Russia, Belarus, South Korea, Hungary, Latvia, etc.

93.171.161.201 (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I've repaired that. A user had tried to replace the citation and figure for Puerto Rico, but replaced the general Dentsu one that was used for multiple countries: [10]. I've restored the original source. --IamNotU (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Scandinavia and other countrys

These percentages for the Nordic countries and the UK are simply unrealistic, and contradict the articles Religion in Denmark, Religion in Sweden, Religion in Finland, Religion in Norway, Religion in Iceland, Religion in the United Kingdom and many others. also When a Japanese says he is irreligious, he is actually Shinto, this is explained in the article Religion in Japan.(The Sr Guy (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)).

Wikiprojects

Why is this article part of WikiProject: Atheism if the article itself testifies that irreligion and atheism are not the same? Primal Groudon (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Atheism is the most prominent type of irreligion based on the objection to the gods. Erkin Alp Güney 07:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Types of irreligion: tabular format

"I can't see the usefulness or contribution of a table in a list-like section as this"

It would be useful in comparing the different peculiarities of different types of irreligion, such as approach to god, approach to religion, approach to creation of nature, in a simple yes/no/indifferent for each. Erkin Alp Güney 16:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem with that would be that these are mostly abstract positions that seem to be fluid as many of these are not about religion, but besides it. Not having a belief in god is not necessarily a view of nonreligion since you have non theistic religions, naturalism is also a view held by people who are theistic such as deism (that is sometimes seen as a religious position without belief in revelation) and most religious people are not supernaturalists where everything is supernatural. Most seem to be minimalists in that sense. Secular humanism, secualrism, spiritual but not religious are mixed with religion, not against it necessarily in most cases too.

To make such oversimplifications like adding yes/no/indifferent would not really help anyone since that would be ignoring the complexities of the views, ignoring the fact that many of these "types" are not really used by anyone in the public to identify their views, and of course it would be editorializing and WP:OR without proper sourcing to make such claims about these positions.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

No, we would tabulate what is already described in the sources. For example, atheism (not non-theist religions) would be God:no, creation:indifferent, revelation:no, religion:indifferent, ethics:indifferent. Erkin Alp Güney 18:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"naturalism is also a view held by people who are theistic such as deism" My edit adding non-mutual-exclusivity of types of irreligion has repeatedly been deleted. Can you provide an example person for naturalistic deism? Erkin Alp Güney 18:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

That is the issue, these positions are not mutually exclusive and an editor making arbitrary ranks of yes/no is not really useful for anyone since these are not rigid positions in the first place. Plus no source actually makes such claims from actual definitions. Looking at you example, on just atheism shows how you are thinking of "secular" atheism when making your "table answers" and ignoring the fact that religions like the Church of Satan are atheists too. See Nontheistic religion for an example of the diversity of beliefs among atheists. Each one of these atheists would have different responses in your "table answers". Anthropologically, "atheism is quite a common position, even within religion" and that "surprisingly, atheism is not the opposite or lack, let alone the enemy, of religion but is the most common form of religion." (Eller, Jack (2010). "1. What Is Atheism?". In Phil Zuckerman (ed.). Atheism and Secularity Vol.1: Issues, Concepts, Definitions. Praeger. ISBN 9780313351839).

Secular humanism, was written by some editor as if it was about about anything but religion, but when looking up the term, it seems to be used for inline with religion and out of line with it at times. As an example of naturalistic deism, you could name any deist like Thomas Jefferson or even people like Aristotle who believed the universe was eternal and so was god. Deists generally reject miracles, revelation, and the general view is that gods do not interfere with the universe in any way. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)