The numbers game...

I agree I would agree with this also. To me the operative word is representative. One serving as an example of a larger group.And to avoid perpetuating a falsehood or in the least, an exaggeration, here is a graphic dated 2002 that indicates the 95% number is actually closer to 86% as previously posted by ohnai. The data is a division of the worlds population and is footnoted as an "approximate estimate".

Why would you need to subdivide the characteristic of religous belief? Why must there be a choice? Suffice to say that a significant majority of the population of this blue marble has a belief in a deity or deities, and the selected representative has a likewise belief.

No, you don’t need to carry it on. Again, there is no need to dissect the characteristic into increasingly smaller divisions. Having a belief in God is an attribute which has the broadest commonality among the group in question, that group being the population of the Earth. It is that commonality among the population which is why the selected representative should also have that attribute. Then why stop at religious belief? Why not examine physical characteristics? How tall is the representative? Is their height sufficiently close to the average height of the world’s population? What about average height in the US? In Europe? And on and on...If you start down the slippery slope of dissecting each and every characteristic of the individual, the selection committee will ultimately come to the conclusion that there is no individual that can be found who has all of the examined attributes in acceptable proportions.So the selection committee concludes that no representative can be sent on this historic mission. Instead, it is agreed that the following message would be sent: