Talk:Religion in Germany

Untitled (2011)
The article should explain that the opinion of the mainstream churchs about cults and new religious movements is influential in Germany. Otherwise it sounds like just an opinion of one religous group about another religious group which should be removed because irrelevant here. Andries (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

To quote from an article: "Those who are concerned about the limitations of religious freedom in Germany should, therefore, consider not only the structure of the legal and political system; it is also necessary to pay attention to the cultural dimensions of society, and to the attitudes and moods that affect social action and the working of the institutions." (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_3_64/ai_109568884/pg_4/?tag=mantle_skin;content). The mainstream churches' opinions are politically influential for the religious history of the country. To really explain this one may start with the Thirty Years' War. Or learn about the rights of the mainline churches as statutory organizations, e. g. to give religious education at state schools. Just one example, German kids have to prepare presentations about Sekten for religion or ethics class and attending these classes is mandatory. --Rafflesiapricei (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons
I don't know how religious science views them, but public opinion and mainline churches classify those groups as Sekten rather than as Christians in Germany. For example [Netzwerk Sektenausstieg e.V. - Dokumentation und Forum über Zeugen Jehovas, Mormonen und andere Sekten] --Rafflesiapricei (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... that particular page doesn't mention Mormons and JWs at all, but this page from the same group categorizes the organizations they cover into "Zeugen Jehovas", "Mormonen", "Sekten", and "Neuapostolische Kirche", suggesting they do not consider JW, Mormons, and NAC to be Sekten strictu sensu. Angr (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The page lists "Zeugen Jehovas", "Mormonen" and "Neuapostolische Kirche", as specific examples of Sekten and does most of its work providing critical information especially about these groups . If you have a page on apples, pears and fruit, it doesn't say that apples and pears are not fruit.
 * The "theological" definition of Sekte "A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination" seems to correspond to sect. The "common" definition referring to "groups or organizations using subtle methods of mind control to make people dependent of them" seems to correspond to cult. Sekte means both. "Zeugen Jehovas", "Mormonen" and "Neuapostolische Kirche" are Sekten in the theological definition and are publicly agreed to be Sekten in the common definition too. Listing only Hare Krishnas and Ananda Marga as examples of  Sekten implies that groups that refer to themselves as Christian cannot be labelled as Sekte. Especially with Jehovah's Witnesses this is not the case.--Rafflesiapricei (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are cultural differences in addition to linguistic ones. In the United States (and maybe other English-speaking countries as well), I don't think most people would seriously consider the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons cults (as opposed to, say, the Branch Davidians and the Peoples Temple, both of which are nominally Christian but definitely considered cults), but in Germany the JWs and the Mormons are not as well known and not as widespread and may therefore be regarded with more skepticism than in the U.S. (If you consider Mormons Christians, then the LDS Church is the 4th largest Christian denomination in the U.S.; if you don't consider them Christians, then they're the largest non-Christian religion in the U.S., there being more Mormons than Jews there.) The Scientologists are also widely considered a cult in Germany (and they don't fit the "separated from a larger denomination" part of the theological definition of Sekte), while views on them vary more greatly in the U.S. So from the point of view of the English speakers likely to be reading this article, it may be jarring to see JWs and Mormons called cults, even if that seems quite natural to Germans. (And yes, if someone listed "Apples, pears, and fruit" on a page, I would think they were suggesting that apples and pears aren't fruit. They should say "Apples, pears, and other fruit".) Angr (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "Sekte" (with a massive negative connotation) has been uses for virtually every group not having more than a billion members worldwide – sometimes even for Buddhists or orthodox Christs. Social expectation in the 1990s was not to care about religion, while practicing catholics or protestants were seen as "people stuck in the past"; practicing another religion was just something strange. Over the last about 10 years, these things have changed a lot – there's no more talk about "Sekten" and about every religious belief is accepted, as long as the members only make rules for them self. With one exception: Scientology is still seen as "the evil itself", but is also far often a topic in media. --TheK (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Map of Christian denominations 2008
I don't think this map is very accurate because the lines between catholicism and protestantism don't follow the borders of modern German states. For example, the state of Baden-Württemberg is roughly half predominantly catholic and half predominantly EKD protestant. I think this one is more accurate:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_religion_map_en.png -- 77.184.40.192 (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1895 map further down the page does a better job of showing exactly where Catholicism and Protestantism are most prevalent. I think it's still pretty accurate within the boundaries of modern Germany, but it doesn't reflect the numbers of irreligious people. Angr (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is now a new map with data from 2011 which also shows the non-religious areas: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Konfessionen_Deutschland_Zensus_2011.png 217.186.193.89 (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_religion_map_en.png is not accurate, it was made by someone. It is pretty good, since it shows the areas of a religious group's concentration. The 1895 map can't be used. A lot has happened since 1895, including the Flight and expulsion of Germans, secularization of East Germany, etc.Ernio48 (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Religious Statistics
There were several estimates used on this page to detail the religious denominations in Germany, many of the sources contradicted eachother. I have updated the figures with data from the 2011 census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdg198 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not give piriority to a single source and using estimates from different sources makes article more informative. This is the uniqueness of wikipedia. I have informed User:Iryna Harpy and she will take the notice.Septate (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I support the edits made by Sdg198. The official 2011 census appears to be more reliable than IPSOS MORI or REMID. JimRenge (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that previously the various citations used in the same paragraph were contradictory. One source says 4 million Muslims for example, the next one says 4.3, the next one says less than 2.1 million. I also think that estimates from statistical agencies are less accurate than the official census. Sdg198 (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is entirely dependent on context. Each article and appropriate sources should be treated according to factors impacting on the quality and veracity of the article. In this instance, are you disputing the German census as a reliable source? If so, why? 2011 is relatively recent, so I would prefer to rely on it as being the tertiary text. Unlike articles such as Religion in Russia (where it has been argued realistically that the census had omitted ethnic groups and regions) or Religion in Ukraine (where there has been no census since 2001 and the 2008 census keeps getting bumped up and is currently predicted to be set for 2016), I don't see a legitimate reason for supplementing or, in this case, replacing a valid, reliable recent source which gleaned its statistical information from all inhabitants of the country rather than sample group data or any methodologies which have come up with such disparate figures. How would you propose to handle the percentages for other religious groups or the irreligious? If the total number is above or below accounting for 100% of the population, how would you adjust the figures? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Different methodologies (such as the exact phrasing of the question) are inherently going to give different answers, so some diversity among polls and census is expected. Also there is a tendency in a census for religious affiliation to generally be overestimated by the head of the household, Second Quantization (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Second Quantization. Statistical analysis is subject to being problematic but, as census statistics appear to be preferred for articles in Wikipedia for demographic information, at least there is assurance of some form of consistency in slightly bolstered estimates per nation-state. I've noticed that independent polls don't qualify 'random' selection groups (were those selected gleaned from a lunch time cross section in a working class area; rural or urban groups; the shopping centre in middle to upper income areas during working hours), or examples of the questionnaires (leading; confusing; presumptuous). Unless there are identifiable oversights in the census questionnaire itself, or regions being overlooked, I'd deem it WP:UNDUE to introduce additional sources unless it's attributed WP:INTEXT and serves a necessary function such as pointing out extremely large variations in estimates. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Church tax figures
Are there any sources for the church tax figures? This would surely provide a good estimate of adherence within some church groups, and wouldnt supplement other census figures Second Quantization (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Every state has it's own "Kirchensteuergesetz". In most law's every Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts can collect the church tax, but not every church collect them (e.g. freechurches) --Nandus (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Church statistics
Septate, could we agree on the fact that REMID and the official church data should be kept are high quality primary sources? Some others of your change seemed ok, please add them again. BR Ulrich Nillurcheier (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Pie chart
Nillurcheier, I believe we can cite only one reference for the pie chart, either REMID or FOWID. JimRenge (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Since there is an ongoing discussion on which data to use, some information should be given on this topic. FOWID is a small clearly atheistic oriented group. They don't do original research and their data are not in line with official church data. REMID is a university institute, regularly checking and publishing data for over 100 religious groups in Germany. Hence, REMID data should be used in cases of doubt. But for the 2 large churches, the solution is easy. They publish their yearly membership data, which are of course the highest achievable data quality. For Islam, there are large differences, but 5% is the most plausible and most often cited figure. In a first step, I will source and add the official church data. BR Ulrich Nillurcheier (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do think some form of decision needs to be made. Having both charts in place is actually quite distracting. If it's truly understood that both REMID and FOWID need to be represented, could it not be done as a single bar graph for a comparative representation. I don't think two pie charts serve as useful visual cues for readers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Both REMID and FOWID use the same sources for the major churches but in this case the data for FOWID are outdated (2014). I would suggest we keep the REMID pie chart and put the FOWID in text. Vargmali (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, having checked into the sources, I'd also suggest that REMID is probably a more neutral source. Any variance in stats can go into the body of the article where it is deemed to be WP:DUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nillurcheier, REMID is not a university institute, it is a "eingetragener Verein" (registered association).
 * I agree with Iryna Harpy, REMID appears to be a more neutral source. However, I have some questions about the REMID pie chart: Are the percentages in the pie chart published by REMID in this way? This link does not report percentages and does not mention the "no religion" group. REMID sells graphics with an "overview Germany 2013" but I do not have access to these graphics and can not verify the numbers. Why are the EKD and Roman Catholic church cited together with REMID in the pie chart; is this a synthesis of sources? What year is the pie chart referring to?  JimRenge (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I realise that I didn't do my homework on REMID properly. The only charts I can access pertain to Spirituality or Global stats. The three refs being used for the pie chart do actually amount to WP:SYNTH rather than WP:CALC. In comparison, the FOWID pdf addresses the entire subject of this article, therefore - even assuming we can obtain verifiable stats taken at unknown points in time from separate articles from REMID - would it be edifying or a breach of WP:NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * FOWID does not produce the numbers by themselves but they use many sources that from what I have gathered are mostly neutral or even the churches themselves. Vargmali (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, JimRenge, you are right on REMID, being an Eingetragener Verein, not a university institute, though they reside in a well known university town. Sorry for that. Secondly, REMID is offering basic data for free, however selling their overview diagrams, including pie charts. Data in the wiki pie chart using percentages have to be calculated with the help of proper population data. I hope, doing this basic math is not original research, since these are the most reliable data I know. BR Ulrich Nillurcheier (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've struggled with the REMID data more than once, when I've suspected vandalism. The site might carry impeccable data, but the cited web page doesn't show any figures at all and it isn't obvious which figures have been assembled from the various sub-pages and by what population figure they've been divided to produce the pie chart. Perhaps the REMID figures and the overall population figure should be tabulated in the article, with absolute values and specific citations for those absolute values, as well as the the calculated percentages. Otherwise the basis for the pie chart isn't transparent, goes beyond WP:CALC, and exposes us to vandalism. I am also rather uncomfortable with using data provided by the various religious organisations. Do they all use the same methodology and are all of them free from any desire to present the most optimistic figures? I would rather we were using census data. NebY (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Essentially, it's been my experience that census figures are preferred unless it's known (via RS) that there are problems with the data (i.e., Religion in Russia), or where there hasn't been a census for well over a decade (i.e., Religion in Ukraine where the last census was held in 2001). While variations in data can certainly be addressed within the body of the article, I have to agree with NebY that it does make articles far more prone to vandalism, and makes it a lot more difficult for other editors to verify stats. Are we actually dealing with profound variations in estimates, or is it really the equivalent of to a case of nuance and not that important to turn it into a headache. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The 2011 census is problematic because it reports only membership in EKD and the catholic church (Körperschaften öffentlichen Rechts). Before the start of the census, Klaus Pötzsch, speaker of the Statistisches Bundesamt stated : "The consequence of this [questionnaire] is that the group of atheists (but also of other religions) is not detectable in the census results. The results of the census will be that we get information about large religious organizations (explicitly mentioned in the questionnaire) but know nothing about the spread of other religions and of atheism."  JimRenge (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised the 2011 census had that problem. Thank you. That's startling and worth describing in the Religion in Germany section. Meanwhile, that seems to bring me back to wanting to see a table of referenced absolute values with the percentages shown in the pie chart. NebY (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that does come as a surprise. Much as I'd be interested to know whether this is a reflection of growth of reactionary tendencies in EU governments, it's off topic for this talk page. But, yes, that makes it all the more important for the sourcing to be clear. There's a bright line between where CALC ends and SYNTH begins. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Religion in Germany section clearly states: Evangelical Church in Germany: 24,328,100 or 30.3% of the German population. So if REMID is more accurate, why do we have FOWID chart on top of the page?Ernio48 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Religion in Germany. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/de/topic/5.mitglieder.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Correct, but replaced with active link to the info. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Christian and Irreligious manipulation of correct data
Most statisticians are Christians and non-believers in Germany. Their data are usually correct. The treat Christian denominations as separate values, but merge the 1. religiously indifferent, 2. atheists, 3. agnostics, 4. other non-believers under one label, the label non-religious. This is pure manipulation because agnostics and atheist separately occupy a larger percentage than the 5.2% of Muslims (not all Sunnis and Shia are friendly to each other neither accept that merge). Many (but of course not all) antimetaphysical atheists are ideologically as distant to agnostics (which are open to the possibility of antimetaphysics or other inherently non logical and analyzable cosmic mechanism) as to other metaphysicalists. This is Wikipedia and not a German statistical office. Correct data if manipulated lead to wrong conclusions, and in the case of Germany to deaths, because they don't try to understand the citizen but to simplify and manipulate him/her because they believe "simple is better". "Not to care" isn't better and it doesn't seem functional either with so many deaths.

Please notice that Atheists and Christians claim they are different, but statistically are covariants. Most neo-atheists (of no Communist background) mainly are of Protestant and secondarily of other Christian denominations, even if we examine it proportionally. This "correct but manipulated" selection of the religious components, unwittingly acts as another brickwall (and not as many separate bricks) against Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4102:3800:281D:B91:C29E:E51D (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * please sign your comment. Do you have any other or more detailed data, if yes, please share! --Nillurcheier (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned that the pie chart is mingling data given it lists three sources; however, if it is using tax registration info, we have no way of differentiating among the people who aren't registered for any church. If we use survey info, a lot depends on how the questions are asked.  Both surveys and registration info should be in the article (but at most only one pie chart) Erp (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Religion in Germany. 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/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/20110430195847/http://www.ekd.de/statistik/mitglieder.html to http://www.ekd.de/statistik/mitglieder.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509024242/http://www.sacred-destinations.com/germany/index.htm to http://www.sacred-destinations.com/germany/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008172432/http://www.buildinghiskingdom.org/germhttp.htm to http://www.buildinghiskingdom.org/germhttp.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Outdated statistics in the list
Most of the statistics contained in the lists of Christian churches are about two decades old (Adherents.com is a database which is mostly not updated, and the sources of the website itself are not immediately verifiable). So, this version which had the major Christian groups with the data from the EKD 2016 report was better.--62.211.21.90 (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Religion by state
In addition to Politbarometer, I think there are also the yearly-updated church membership data for each state.--Wddan (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about that, Politbarometer is more precise.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Many changes including Politbarometer
I reverted to last consensus version, not saying that all changes in detail are wrong. However major changes should be discussed first on this page. The German situation differs from the rest of the world (excl. Austria) that there are precise membership data of the major religious bodies, which can be reported directly. In addition there are many sources of census, survey and other data. Here are some, I know including a priority proposal from my side: Prio 1: Prio 2: Prio 3:
 * Church membership data Roman- catholic and EKD
 * membership collecting data organizations like REMID and FOWID
 * Census data: 2011 census and historically 1987, 1970 and older
 * Survey like PEW, Eurobarometers and Politbarometer

I strongly suggest to use prio 1 data where available and add prio 2 and 3 to fill the gaps. It might also be ok to list survey data in an extra table somewhere in a statistics chapter. BR Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nillurcheier. The solution is basically the same that I proposed here.--Wddan (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the Statistics section is ok as it is now. It shouldn't look like a list but more a contextualized section.
 * Regarding the Politbarometer survey, it shouldn't be compared as a Pew or EB because its sample is thirty times larger (having a sample of 30,599) and has two weights that make the survey incredibly reliable. This means that it's correct to give it bigger visibility rather than other surveys. I also think that it's a good survey for 2016 and should be togheter with the church data in the lede becouse they are two different types of sources.
 * Regarding the other surveys, I know that Eurobarometer uses only one weight and has around 1.000 people of sample so it's worth citing but I am not sure that Pew Research Center in its last research regarding religion in Western Europe used a weight, becouse it showed a Catholic share of 44%.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * if this survey is of such excelling quality, how do you explain the heavy deviation of 34 vs. 27 % eg. for protestants? No this data is poor and more a kind of side result since politbarometer is known (as the name says) for its political questions, not for religious ones. --Nillurcheier (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's simple, most people who leave the church do so in order to avoid paying these taxes, since religious communities are corporations under public law with the power to levy compulsory taxes on their members. The tax rate is eight percent of income tax in Bavaria and nine percent in other states; the tax is collected by the state and in other cases data on church members' income is shared. See this publication:.
 * I know that Politbarometer is focused on politics, but the religious question is reliable. --FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Stick to the reinstated WP:CON version. There has been far too much mixing and mismatching of sources over a number of these "Religion in X" articles. It results in WP:SYNTH, and is a breach of WP:NOR. These are broad scope articles, WP:NOTNEWS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Statistical Dawkinsism (make it look big, even if it's shallow)
The atheists and the non religious are separate groups. If you merge different opinions you can create a fake mega-opinion. The atheist doesn't believe in god. The non religious (if it was presented as a separate entry, not as it is) either doesn't care, or hasn't thought about it. Of course I know that now you've merged all non religious people without respect. I can merge Christians and Muslims as Unatheists. Distorted statistics generates pseudo-megagroups which serve political purposes and do not respect the people. Some politicians support the unaware mild atheism for social cohesion and try to hide the conscious atheism.

Eastern Germany
The study in 2012 cited was unable to find a single person under 28 in Eastern Germany who believes in God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.71.210.138 (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good. So where does it say that Germany is the least religious country in the world? What does your argument have to do with edit warring content to create WP:SYNTH suiting your personal point of view. We use reliable sources precisely to avoid having users like you trying to write about their own opinions. Find a reliable source stating that Germany is the least religious country in the world, and bring it to the table. Evidently, you haven't seen enough census responses from other countries. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Religion in Germany. 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/20070711173546/http://www.fowid.de/fileadmin/datenarchiv/Religionsgemeinschaften_Deutschland%2C%202005.pdf to http://www.fowid.de/fileadmin/datenarchiv/Religionsgemeinschaften_Deutschland%2C%202005.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Christianity fragmented into denominations, conscious atheists merged with irreligious
A Roman Catholic is way closer metaphysically to a Protestant than a conscious atheist to an irreligious (not to care, or not to follow a religion).

Atheism and Irreligion are different forms of Nontheism.

You gerrymander the data, simply to present that atheists fight against divided Christians.

You don't care about the Germans and their opinion.

Usually Richard Dawkins merges all nontheists to present a bigger number, while usually interpreting them as atheists - thus merging hyponyms as a hypernym, but titling them under his favorite hyponym. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't do that all the time. In big texts he's analytical and avoids mergers.

You might claim that I'm a Heretical Hebrew (=Christian) who believes that ancient Israelites knew better neuroscience than us, but no. I am not a moron (=an egotistical being not aware of the absolute nature of death).

Merging nontheists in order to present a bigger number (as atheists statisticians love to gerrymander) harms the nontheistic spectrum.

Nontheism is based on analytical thought, not in mergers.

Also we must treat the same way the orders of hyponymy (same leveled tiers of hyponymification).

You have the excuse for not being analytical, if a group is under 2%. Here you've no excuse!

You analyzed theists, and the subgroup of Christians, but you've merged all nontheists.

The subgroup of Christians is two tiers down (theism or religion > Christianity > Christian Denominations) more fragmented than the hypergroup of nontheists, so what is presented is pure political filth.

Read ways to present statistical data

_____

You might claim that: "I've copied an old survey others conducted".

These others aren't blind.

Leave it there so they will correct their political gerrymanderism.

Surveys do get updated.

Also you dubbed the survey Statistical Data of Religion/Theism which is a subgroup of Worldview/Metaphysics.

You've used the excuse others commit the same mistake.

You kiddo have to know that in maths and statistics, you must batch and fragment logically correctly, and what the masses do is irrelevant.

I maths if we erroneously group and fragment, we are wrong. Being perceived as cute by the masses is absolutely irrelevant! Be the first one to be correct, and even die for it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8490:3400:608A:BDA2:6DF7:A815 (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Feel free to split groups, if you can provide reliable data. --Nillurcheier (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that the only way to solve this problem is to put in the first place in the pie chart the Christian denominations, only if summed up they make a larger share than the irreligious people. FrankCesco26 (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Line chart?
If someone can find and collect the official data published from 1990 onwards (surely those for the 2000s can be found in archived versions of the article) we could add a Template:Line chart (already present in other articles, including religion in the Netherlands, religion in Switzerland and religion in Iceland). It would be an interesting addition to show the trends of religions in Germany throughout the decades.--Wddan (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As you know, German history had some breaks. starting in 1990 after reunification is ok. data are easily available. --Nillurcheier (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, the line chart has been added by FrankCesco26. However, for the 1990s onwards I think that the line should be made with the yearly church membership statistics rather than the 2011 census. This would show a less sharp declivity after 1939, and would reach 2016. Here are some data from 1990 to 2016. what do you think?--Wddan (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think, it is ok to add this membership data of the 2 large churches as documented by themselves. But it should be made clear, this data is not about adherency nor believe but only officil church membership statistics. --Nillurcheier (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you any idea on where to find reliable data for Islam from 1990 onwards? I think it should have its own line.--Wddan (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The church membership data and the census one are unrelated, as the church membership is based on the registers of the main churches. Most people officially leave the church in order to avoid the payment of the taxes. This means that the official church data does not obviously correspond to actual religious affiliation but I'd say it's more like the italian 8xmille.
 * Regarding the line chart, it must include only censuses and from what I've found there have been censuses in Western Germany in 1950 1960 1970 and 1987 that include religious affiliation, but I'm not sure about the ones in Eastern Germany, if they were not conducted it would be impossible to have an aggregated data of full Germany that is compatible with the previous censuses.
 * EDIT: I've found this aricle by fowid that shows a detailed table about the religions in the censuses: https://fowid.de/meldung/deutschland-konfessionen Please note that the figures for 2011 showed by the article are actually the register based data for 2011, that differs from the census data used in the article. FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * After a lot of work, I've menaged to update the table and the line chart. I couldn't use the data from the 1970 and the 1987 Western Germany's censuses since there weren't any census regarding the religion in the later censuses. Nillurcheier, since your mother tongue is German, can you find data that can be used for Eastern Germany in 1970-1987? Thank you FrankCesco26 (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The 2011 datum for Orthodox Christians is missing from the total of "other religions" in the table and line chart.--Wddan (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I happened to find a very recent article regarding Christianity in East Germany: https://fowid.de/meldung/deutschland-4-entkirchlichte-osten. It says that there were no census questions regarding religious affiliation in the GDR. Hence there are no official data available. --Nillurcheier (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've found this publication ( https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=younghistorians ) citing 1986 data at page 17 in the chart, but I can't see the original source as there are restricted permissions to see it. FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The source is The chart itself is on page 407 and cites as its source the "World Value Survey".  I note it states it is "retrospective data" and the paper states "10. The 1999-2001 WVS includes the question: 'Apart from weddings, funerals and christenings, about how often did you attend religious services when you were twelve years old?' By matching respondent's age to the answer to this question and drawing the reasonable inference that 12-year-old children usually attend religious services accompanied by their parents, retrospective religious attendance on five-year intervals can be calculated. Because Germans are long-lived and there are enough respondents in each five-year cohort, one can estimate religious participation since the mid 1920s. For discussion of this technique, see Iannaccone (2002). While social-desirability effects have apparently upwardly biased reported church attendance in the U.S. surveys, it is not at all clear that the same effect would be present in Germany (page 419)"
 * Hope this helps.--Erp (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I guess this is not a data we can use in the table, but I think that the official church membership has data for 1990 or early. FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Judaism
I am concerned by the glaring omission of Nazism in this section. I have now edited the section for the second time and hope that we can work to make sure this remains in the article.

Marclubitz1 (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 - religion by state
The table of religion by state should be remade with the 2011 census data or (better) the latest church data, rather than the 2016 Politbarometer, which counted just the adult population entitled to vote.--Wddan (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok then, replace Politbarometer data with the 2011 detailed census data from the Zensus website. FrankCesco26 (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Both data are crap. Much better data are available, see German Wikipedia Mitgliederentwicklung.... --Nillurcheier (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The source of the data there is the official church membership, that may differ from the actual religious affiliation that is better found with the self-identification methods of the census, and other surveys. People tend to officially leave the church to avoid the overpayment of 9% of the total tax to fund religious associations, as it is written in the publication by Jens Petersen "Kirchensteuer kompakt: Strukturierte Darstellung mit Berechnungsbeispielen.".FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference between the church membership and the latest census is minimal, 26% in 2016 instead of 30% in 2011 for Protestants and 28% in 2016 instead of 30% in 2011 for Catholics, so the church membership is accurate to represent believers, also given the ongoing decline of the two religions. Also, true believers should be earnest in giving the tithe to their church, so the theory that people who believe leave the church to avoid the tithe is not cogent.--Wddan (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 5% of difference between the two sources is very relevant and may compromise the quality of the data. The ideas of the true believers is a your assumption without any sort of source. I suggest using the 2011 Census data which is just right in representing the main christian denominations and who doesn't belong to a religion, the other religions are slightly underrepresented since there wasn't a specific field for each minor religion in the census and many people belonging to the affected religions decided to opt out to answer. Nevertheless, the Census data remains the most reliable data.FrankCesco26 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is reasonable to think that religious people are earnest in giving the due tax to the church. Why should a believer not support his church? Anyway, the 5% difference perfectly reflects the five-years difference between 2011 and 2016, given that both the churches decline approximately 1% each year.--Wddan (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference does not fit the gap, and even comparing the 2011 census with the registered data there is a deep gap, with the Evangelicals going down 1.6% from 30.8% to 29.2% and the Catholics going down 1.2% from 31.2% to 30.0%. This is a fact, the auto-identification surveys and the census all show the same data. I've checked the 2016 German Social Survey, the 2015 International Social Survey, the 2016 Politbarometer, the 2015 Eurobarometer and every survey show the proportion of Catholics and Protestants to be over 30%, are they all wrong? FrankCesco26 (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A difference of 1.6% or 1.2% is what you call "a deep gap"?--Wddan (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is, that is a change of several hundreds of thousand people.FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there the need to specify the sample and the questions of a survey in the text body of the article?
Based on WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:NOTMANUAL, I think that it is excessive and unencyclopedic to specify, in the main text body of the article, the consistency of the sample of any survey and the questions which were asked to the sampled people (see this case). I am not saying that these are not important things, but the main text body should show just the outcomes of the survey, and the methodology should be explained (if the explanation has some relevance) in the reference or in a footnote.--Wddan (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that a clear explanation of the survey methodology must be given in the text right under the data, and must not be hidden in references of footnotes since it gives crucial information about the wording of the question, that is one of the main factors that affect the differences between the censuses and the other surveys. The sample size also is very important, since surveys with a more robust sample are usually more reliable than surveys with a smaller sample in which a few different answers can drastically affect the final data, even with the best weights. I would also add information on what kind of weight has been used, but I think that is too excessive. FrankCesco26 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is utterly irrelevant to the scope of an encyclopedia, which is neither a manual of statistics nor of statistical methodology. It can be shown in a footnote, but not in the main article. Readers are interested in the outcome, not in knowing that the people were asked "Are you religious?" and then "What is your religion?", since it is WP:BLUESKY.--Wddan (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , what do you think about this?--Wddan (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The methodology must not be hidden in the footnotes or in the references, the reader must not be misinformed about the data he reads and has to be aware that there are wide differences between the data of the survey and the data from the census or other surveys due to the wording, that is the main factor that significantly change the data. I personally think that in a survey list section the methology perfectly fits and must be always reported. You seem not to understand how actually surveys work. FrankCesco26 (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Those surveys are mostly sampled on sections of the adult population. Indeed, they also hugely underestimate Islam, which is around 5%.--Wddan (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's really stupid to report the questions of the survey; it's not encyclopedic content, also considering that most of those minor surveys are already given more emphasis than they deserve. This is turning the articles into lists of statistics, against the policies of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:NOTMANUAL. I am fully convinced of this. But let's see how other editors have to say about this:, , .--Wddan (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is how that type of technical information should be presented in the article. The readers are interested in the outcomes of the surveys, possibly reliable ones published by reliable institutions, not in reading a manual on how to carry out a survey.--Wddan (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your question is a minor detail and we are running into the risk of getting lost in endless discussions about close to irrelevant issues. Actually I dislike the aboundance of statistics, which have never been relevant in German society, news or research. Germany is one of few countries reporting membership data of religious bodies. Adding census results is fine, but any data beyond this hardly contributes further information or insight to the article. It is rather irritating or confusing for readers if e.g. a sideresult of an election poll is presented as relevant religious statistics. Let us reduce data to few but relevant sets. BR Ulrich --Nillurcheier (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Censuses' table refashioning
I just refashioned the table of the data from censuses in the same style of those found in other articles of the same series. Compared to the old version, however, I have left out the data from the 1939 census of Nazi Germany, since the latter covered a larger expanse of land and many non-German populations compared to the foregoing and following German states (10 million more people compared to the census of the Weimar Republic in the same year). I would like to know if this was the right thing to do, especially from users with deep knowledge of German history.--Wddan (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

16 May 2018 - false accusations by FrankCesco26
This claim against me is false: "along the unexplained edits you made, you remove things you don't like" [sic].

The content was removed by FrankCesco26 himself in the previous edit.

The edit is also not consistent with FrankCesco26's behaviour in other articles, in which he has insisted for the removal of pie charts representing minor surveys (religion in France, religion in the United Kingdom: "or we add a chart for every survey or remove them all. we can't add charts for every survey we find in the internet" [sic]).

There is a glaring, recurring non-neutral pattern in this editing behaviour.--Wddan (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

rename page with a hypernym: Metaphysical Worldviews in Germany
The fact you mimicked a popular mistake, doesn't constitute it correct taxonomically/set-theoretically/ordonymically === Mathematical mistakes/set theory mistakes are not subjected to prevalent mistake establishment practice. Mathematical mistakes/set theory mistakes do occur and are corrected when perceived.
 * Even if some forms of atheism where religions, not all atheists belong to unions neither a single atheistic union exists, so we cannot guarantee that all atheists are religious (even if we have the statistically rare and politically motivated opinion that some forms of atheism are religions - some atheists are not philosophical and analytical about their atheism so they cannot be religious, some theists are not philosophical and analytical about their theism, but statistically most of them belong to religions as the term religion is described by the majority).

Not all others are necessarily atheists or theists, so even if we accept to define unprofessionally (because it is not standardized) atheism as a religion, we cannot guarantee that all others are atheists and theists. What is the point to title a "metaphysical worldview" survey with the noun "Religions" when as a statistician you don't want to push towards one possible subgroup/hyponym, instead you want to record facts about a generic hypernym with all its spectrum of possible outcomes?
 * 1) You've made a mistake and you aren't aware of it.
 * 2) You've made a mistake and you are aware of it, but you believe statistics is less important than popular simplifications.
 * 3) You are politically motivated.

Metaphysics is a hypernym, read its Wikipedia article
Metaphysics and worldviews aren't necessarily supernatural.

one might claim that:

 * 1) "none" of "other" still aren't necessarily "metaphysical worldviews"
 * Answer: "metaphysical worldview nones and others" are grouped under a more generic title
 * Ascribing somethings so unspecified as "none" and "other" under a hyponym and not a hypernym,
 * forces towards narrower interpretations of the data.
 * Interpretations about the data are NOT the data!!!
 * 1) we really care about the hyponym "religions", not about the hypernym "metaphysical worldviews"
 * Answer:
 * a. that is not correct, we care about all relative data
 * b. in statistics our urges don't define the titles, we usually select generic titles because we want merely to describe facts and not to push towards narrower interpretations
 * in statistics it's easier to find answers than to neutrally describe an overall situation

Some considerations regarding the official church statistics
It should be noted that the main data used in the article, the official church membership data of the catholic church and the evangelical church, may be an underestimation of the actual number of believers of such churches due to the church tax which corresponds to the 8% (in baden wuerttenberg) and 9% (in all the other laender) and is deducted from the wage of members. (information: https://liveworkgermany.com/2017/11/what-is-german-church-tax-and-how-do-i-avoid-paying-it/)

According to a survey based on 56.953 persons who left the churches in 2018, 44.2% did so in order to avoid paying the additional tax, while 34.4% were dissatisfied with the church instutions/officials while only the 16.4% did so because it didn't believed in God anymore. Source (https://www.kirchenaustritt.de/umfrageergebnis).

This is why most recent surveys show completely different data when compared to the official church data, and ususally show higher proportions of catholics and protestants. The actual percentage of the catholics and the protestants is at ~30% each, while the proportion of irreligious people is at ~30-34% according to four recent sources I posted in the table I added in recent changes to the page.

The next 2021 Census will not include a question on the religious affiliation as opposed to the last census, but even comparing the 2011 census data with the 2011 church membership data there is a downward bias:


 * 24,869,380 (31.2%) self-identified Catholics vs 24,066,604 registered catholics (who pay the church tax) (30.0% -802,766 members of difference)


 * 24,552,110 (30.8%) self-identified Evangelical Church members vs 23,369,341 registered evangelical church members (who pay the church tax as well) (29.1%, -1,182,769 members of difference)

Sources (self-identified religion in the 2011 census: https://ergebnisse.zensus2011.de/?locale=en#dynTable:statUnit=PERSON;absRel=ANZAHL;ags=00;agsAxis=X;yAxis=RELIGION_AUSF)

(church count for 2011: https://ergebnisse.zensus2011.de/?locale=en#dynTable:statUnit=PERSON;absRel=ANZAHL;ags=00;agsAxis=X;yAxis=RELIGION_KURZ)

Therefore the article should be cautious whether to use official church figures or not because they may be severally underrepresenting the actual number of catholics and lutherans in the country. I would suggest using the REMID and FOWID for the estimates of minority religions and some statistically reliable source for the percentage of Catholics and Protestants such as the German General Social Survey (which has recently released data for the yeat 2018) or specify that the actual church count may be an underestimation and the percentage of not religious people in the stats and the pie chart are actually "people who are not officially affiliated to any religious institution".

, as a frequent contributor to this page and other religious demography pages, how can this page be improved to fix this problem regarding the underrepresentation of catholcs and protestants in official church data? Do you have any fix proposal?

Of course anyone else who can provide an unbiased opinion is welcome to the discussion. FrankCesco26 (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sheer amount of data in this article continues to be confusing. The church tax figures are hard data that comes out annually; however, they don't include people who belong to religions that choose not to be or cannot be part of the church tax structure.  It also includes people who choose to pay up though they no longer believe (e.g., they work for a Catholic school or hospital and would lose their job if they cease to be Catholic). It also does not includes people who just don't want to pay but consider themselves Catholic, etc.   Unaffiliated with a church tax receiving religious organization is probably the best way of describing those who opt out.   The census gives good data but only every 10 years and up to 2011 (and 2021 will apparently not include a religion question) and may over count (culturally Catholic, etc).   Then there are the surveys of varying quality.  We should probably have a small section or an extended footnote(s) describing the sources and stating the perceived benefits and drawbacks of each (according to other good sources). --Erp (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There are some good points here. I made a comment at Talk:Religion in Berlin, that might be relevant. Although there are very reliable sources for the number of registered, church-tax-paying people, portraying those who are not as being "irreligious" or "atheist", as opposed to "unaffiliated" or "unregistered" is misleading. Newspaper articles containing such portrayals are not uncommon, but I think they should be treated with a good deal of skepticism in terms of being accepted as a reliable source for such information. A clear description of the situation regarding church tax is important in order to provide context for any statistics about believers or non-believers... --IamNotU (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that the whole demographic section should be revisited to be made more clear, and church data should not be used as the main source of the article since they may be underreporting the actual membership. All the percentages should be in extended Demographic section including with considerations on the number of registered members, 2011 census data and survey data. I think that the estimates by REMID and FOWID are correct for minor religions and in my opinion may be used with data from surveys to provide a correct religious landscape. The article should include three sections under the section "Demographics" which provide three different sets of data. I am not sure whether keeping multiple percentages in the lede (e.g. "Christianity is the largest religion in Germany, comprising an estimated 56.2% to 63.2% of the country's population in 2018 based on different sources" or "The two churches together comprised 53.2% to 59.5% of the population in 2018, of whom 27.7% to 29.1% belonged to the Catholic Church and 25.5% to 30.4% to the Evangelical Church.") or keeping the data out of the introduction leaving it for the Demographic section (leaving the lede something like "Christianity is the largest religion in Germany, since the conversion of the Germanic tribes after the 4th century. Other minority religions in Germany include Islam, whose followers have full or partial foreign background, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism and many other minor religions. A significant part of the population is not affiliated to any church, and many are atheist, agnostic or simply irreligious. The two largest Christian churches of the country are the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), a Protestant confederation of United Protestant (Lutheran and Reformed) churches."). Tell me what are your opinions about it. FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Any source will have biases and the church tax info is, after the census, among the most authoritative (people are making a monetary commitment though it does not cover several religious groups). For the lede I would probably use approximations such as about 60% are Christian with about half of those being Catholic, half belonging to the Evangelical Church of Germany (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, abbreviated EKD), and the rest to several small Christian denominations; between 5 and 6% are Muslim and almost all of the rest are unaffiliated.  Also the statement that Christianity has been the largest religion in Germany since the conversion of the the Germanic tribes after the 4th century is misleading; a large chunk of present day Germany was not converted until the time of Charlemagne in the 8th/9th century.  The Demographics section could begin with "Information in Germany on religious affiliation comes from the various censuses, from the annual Church tax records (though this omits religions not supported by this tax), religious organizations' self-reporting of membership numbers, and surveys" then discuss the 2011 European Union census info, followed by other info.  BTW the Pew Forum did a survey on church tax payers and religious belief and practices (https://www.pewforum.org/2019/04/30/in-western-european-countries-with-church-taxes-support-for-the-tradition-remains-strong/)  --Erp (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made some of the changes we discussed it here, feel free to contribute as well with changes in the article. I think that the whole survey section has to be made clearer and the article still lacks the explanation on the underrepresentation problem in the church membership figures. - FrankCesco26 (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article fully lacks any explanation on the overrepresentation of christians (the 53 % Members of the large churches includes many Karteileichen ). However, German official statistics do use these figures and without a reputable - preferaby peer reviewed - acadamic research I see no reason why these figures not should be used. The now reported 60% is obviously too high . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.179.117.143 (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The current lede is misleading and makes several unsourced statements.It states: Nowadays about 60% of the population is Christian with about half of those being Roman Catholic, stronger in the southern and the western part of the country, half belonging to the Evangelical Church of Germany (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, abbreviated EKD) predominant in the northern regions,
 * no source is provided that 60% is Christian. No source is provided that about half of the 60% is belonging to the EKD (actually this was 25,46% at yearend 2018 as per the EKD and very likely is less than 25% by now ), no source is provided that the EKD is predominant in the northern region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.179.117.143 (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a very detailed explanation on why the German church counts underestimate the actual number of beleivers before, with a lot of sources based on auto-identification of the respondents such as the official German census of 2011 which states that 64.2% of the Germans are Christians, and many other recent surveys (such as the Eurobarometer (a survey carried out by the EU), or the German General Social Survey, or the ISSP) that state that the Christian population of Germany is comprised between 63.2% and 66.1%. Just read. Using Census data, the catholics are almost half of the Christian population (31.2/64.2*100 = 48.6%) and the Evangelical Church members make up most of the other half (30.8/64.2*100 = 48%), while the remaining part is made up by members of other protestant denominations and other christians, such as the orthodox. - FrankCesco26 (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing some mixing of terminology here. Being a "believer" is not the same as being a "member" of a church. The membership figures from the churches themselves are accurate, there is no underrepresentation of their membership. If one is a member of a congregation and pays the church tax, then one is a member of the church. If not, then not so much - though one could say that another sense of the word is that membership begins with baptism and is lifelong unless communion is formally ended. The terms need to be clear - an "adherent" may or may not be the same thing as a "member" - particularly if there is data available that can distinguish between them, they should not just be mixed together under a less-specific "affiliation".
 * People may feel themselves spiritually, or culturally, to be Catholics, Protestants, or whatever. That can, to some extent, be estimated by surveys, though the question is inherently vague. There is a wide spectrum between "adherent" or "believer", and "irrelegious" or "atheist". Many people would say they're Christians, but don't actually believe in a living God or Jesus, and don't engage in any kind of spiritual practice. It's inaccurate to try to represent this as though it is a binary. We can say things like "about 60% of Germans surveyed self-identify as Christians", but we can't say "60% of Germans are Christians" without qualification. Hard numbers on church membership are available from the churches; soft estimates about vague affiliations of the rest are available elsewhere - they shouldn't be lumped together. --IamNotU (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of fine distinctions.  Official membership as shown by church tax; official membership as shown by the religion's books (note that not all religions participate in the church tax and so that can't be used to calculate their membership and their own books may diverge considerably from reality [e.g., the Latter Day Saints tend to overcount by a lot] others undercount [Jehovah's Witnesses]); participation in ritual (numbers who attend church and similar); public self-identification (this may differ according to the questions asked and any advantage/disadvantage for answering in a particular way).  For the lede use approximations and perhaps a footnote pointing people to the demographic section for details or to a couple of sources.  To use one figure with three significant numbers there would be giving undue weight either to an older statistic (e.g., the 2011 census) or to a statistic that has other problems (e.g., the church tax which does not include Muslims).  Note that in most of the sources especially the more reliable we can appropriately round the figures to agree with the statement so it is attributable and not unpermitted synthesis.   I would move the last paragraph in the lede (on belief or lack thereof) to the demographics section and replace it with a paragraph about the legal situation (i.e., state support through the church tax and instruction in the schools, freedom of religion, unofficial/registration/PLC status, that states within Germany have a great deal of leeway on religious matters) though an entire section on the legal situation is warranted --Erp (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Repeated changes to the population figure
Please stop changing the figure in the second paragraph. It's been bouncing around between 56% and 67% for the past month, and we can't have that!

My suggestion is that the phrase "identifies as Christian" is too vague and overly simplistic. "Responded to a census question" or "are registered members of a church", etc., are more concrete. Also, if there are two strong sources that differ significantly, it's not allowed to pick a number halfway in-between. That's WP:SYNTHESIS.

Please discuss and agree on which sources will be cited, and on a more precise description of what the sources say. It may be ok to say, for example, "estimates range from X to Y", or "according to Reliable Authority X, it's Z", but a number that is reached by haggling amongst Wikipedia editors is not acceptable. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting a threat on this topic. Indeed, Germany is one of the few countries where we have "registered membership" data. Census, surveys and other polls may deviate from this data due to different reasons: Church members claiming to be nonbelievers. Nonbelievers calling themself christians. Minors, not being asked in surveys and more. Hence this church data are the best numbers we might get, I agree, they could be marked as "official membership data". This appies for the 2 large denominations. For all other religious groups, Germany has surveys and guesses as all other countries. They lead to more or less deviating data.
 * Current data, as far as I know them. RK: 27.7. EKD: 25.5, orthodox 1.9-2.2, other Christians 1.1-2.2, Muslim: 2-6, other religions: 0.9, rest: 35.5-41.

I don't think that we can come closer to reality. --Nillurcheier (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Right now it includes the claim "54% identify as Christians". That doesn't seen to be supported by the references given, which talk about church membership. PeterTrompeter (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps sb lime Nillurcheier can point me to a place in the references that supports said claim? PeterTrompeter (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem.

Source 1=3 FOWID saays: 51% membership of EKD and catholic church, 54% christians Source 4 globalreligious futures says 66% christians. However this is a very poor glassballing source, which should be removed Source 5 EKD19 says: 55% Christians

If your issue is the word "identify themselves" we had to go into Eurobarometer, which covers this nicely. Nillurcheier (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Chart
From the article [see chart on the right]:

That chart isn't supported by the source. The source has: That gives: Even when adding 3,5 muslims + 0,8 alevites to 4,3 muslimoids, it's far from 5. --15:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 51% catholic and protestant Christians
 * 3,5 muslims
 * 40,7 no religion
 * 4,8 others
 * 3 other Christians
 * 0,8 alevites
 * 0,2 buddhists
 * 0,1 jews
 * 0,1 hindi
 * 0,1 yezides
 * 0,4 others
 * 54% Christians/Christianity
 * 51 catholics & protestants
 * 3 others
 * 40,7 no religion
 * 3,5 muslims/islam


 * Please look carefully at the chart. there is a second source that says Muslimes 6.3-6.7% now, what should we do. neglegt this high quality source, add a second chart or make an average of 6.7 and 3.5, what i did. Nillurcheier (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You analyzed the religions in the main chart, but erroneously you claim that people who are open to the violation of physics = agnostics, are physicalists
The different irreligious beliefs: atheist, agnostic, metaphysically indifferent shouldn't be merged if you don't merge the theisms.

Richard Dawkins wants to present that religions are the enemy, and different nontheistic opinions should politically unite against supernaturalism.

Neil deGrasse Tyson erroneously claims that etymology is tautological/ identical to definition, and that agnosticism means I don't know, but I am not open to violations of physical laws. Neil deGrasse Tyson's definition of agnosticism is an oratorical trick. Mean agnosticism is openness to the violation of reason and to science, including Neil deGrasse Tyson's field of study. Not all nontheists have the exact same opinion.

Many Germans are disrespectful towards metaphysical worldviews. They falsely claim that the army uses the Iron Cross which is the map of Prussia and not the symbol of Jesus. The Iron Cross isn't a secular symbol. The map of Prussia had a different shape.

Church tax data
This page used to contain church tax data per year for the various denominations, especially Catholics and Protestants, many years ago. Now they seem gone. What is the reason? 80.116.143.110 (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Non-religious should be mentioned first
It is lying by omission to exclude non-religious from the first line, since they are a far greater number than eiher Christian group. Something like 'Nearly all Germans are either non-religious or Christian (Catholic or Protestant), according to recent polling.' 178.139.171.177 (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As long as christianity is bigger than irreligion, it seems fine to mention christianity first. The first paragraph then is a chronological history. The recent statistics follow later in the lead, I would advocate to leave it that way to avoid recentism. Keep also in mind that most people look at the graph with the current distribution first anyway. 2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:2C98:387B:A549:4647 (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)