Err... I don't understand. Are you saying that another statistician made a glaring error by massing 15.5% of an obviously diverse sub categories in a group of t

Err... I don't understand. Are you saying that another statistician made a glaring error by massing 15.5% of an obviously diverse sub categories in a group of the world population so, using it as the source, you did the same? People can and do identify as strongly religious or spiritual and atheist. Likewise, there are many agnostics who just don't care. My point being, Atheist, agnostic, and non-religious are distinctly different, you don't find many who are on the fence about being atheist. At the same time I don't know that they identify as non-religious. To me non-religious is avoiding the conversation all together. Atheists have a leaning, they have beliefs, and in that, they have a religion. (Where it's FSM or whatever) These three groups make up what is other wise 15% of the human population (or the third largest group of all groups)it my be worth counting atheist apart from non-religious. At the same time charting Rasta at 0.06% seems a little unbalanced.