Talk:Paradise

Weight

The subsection about Jehovah's Witnesses basically re-states, at some length, what is already stated as Irenaeus' 2nd century view about paradise, and that they accept a rendering of Luke 23:43 that is consistent with the Curetonian Gospels. These views clearly are not unique to Jehovah's Witnesses, and seems unnecessary to elaborate on their specific view here. Belief that the 'righteous' will live on a literal 'restored' earth after the 'millenium' rather than in 'heaven' is a general belief of Adventism (from which Jehovah's Witnesses originated), and should not be misrepresented as a belief unique to JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem with atheism

It's a myth that atheists become Christians when they go to hell or paradise. Statistically only 3 to 12% change opinion (watch Robert Sapolsky, openness on Vimeo), and we know that from other psychological tests. Most atheists would believe that they are scientifically and without magic transfered to a parallel universe with a monarch named god.

On the other hand ALL Christians change opinion when they go to the atheistic equivalent of hell and paradise; the nothingness. ALL Christians then become religiously neutral; because nothingness doesn't allow thought.

One might claim: "yes, but we don't know, either the atheists or the Christians are right".
Both experiencing and non-experiencing are empirical and not merely intellectual, mathematical or logical assessments.
Both experiencing and non-experiencing aren't a causal analyses of the specific systemic processes.
It is a mere empirical experience. Empiricism doesn't lead to systemic knowledge as metalogic.
Study the work of Bertrand Russell.

keep it here, national flags (UK, Finland, Georgia...) depict the sign of the cross, so even non Christian citizens have the right to contribute to the "controversy" paragraph (for important subjects there is a controversy section) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4105:2C00:6057:C7B1:7B56:C232 (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• watch Robert Sapolsky, openness on Vimeo

1. experience doesn't have a single interpretation
2. empiricism isn't the only methodology which shapes opinions; try metalogic

Re: Paradise (Hebrew Related/Word or Cognate Version)

Hi, everyone :)

Just wanted to mention (include) this unmentioned detail-which perhaps, should be mentioned (?!) for purposes of wholesome information about the (inevitably, similar-sounding/appearing) Hebrew word of: par'des=פַּרְדֵּס (which, like its Persian & preceding derivative equivalents, respectively, referred to a garden/an enclosure-like garden space which this Hebrew word DOES portray). AK63 (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Islamic Art

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sdolphin02 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Shakera Patterson, Zorabissell, Joe.harkins.richmond.

— Assignment last updated by Shakera Patterson (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Not to be confused vs See also

Which one would be better for this and Heaven? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

See WP:HATNOTE. Neither seem appropriate to me. As aforementioned, {{See also}} is not used at the top of articles. There's meant to be a WP:SEEALSO section at the bottom, right? If an article's that important to another, it'll fit naturally into the prose, or it'll go there, is the idea. Remsense ‥ 论 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

For the conditions it does say these two things though:

"They may be seeking an article with a similar name to, or that otherwise might be confused with, the article with the hatnote."

"Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind."

Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Both articles already discuss the distinction and overlap with one another prominently in the lead, so I would consider not having a hatnote, since that would appear to be almost entirely redundant. Remsense ‥ 论 23:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Why can't it be both in the hatnote and lead? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

There's no need, it is redundant. To elaborate further: redundancy isn't free, I'm afraid. Space at the top of articles is truly precious, both in terms of the vertical line itself as well as it being another element to draw the eye of the reader in their minute or two they're likely to spend here. I get that might sound incredibly frivolous since it's literally just one line, but I really do think it matters, serving the general point that we shouldn't repeat ourselves for no real reason. Remsense ‥ 论 23:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmmmm alright, since you're experienced I'll trust you on this, and remove it from both articles. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Appreciated! I'm wrong sometimes though, so don't make a habit of it! . Remsense ‥ 论 23:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)