Author Topic: teaching children Na'vi?  (Read 9809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Muzer

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
  • Karma: 10
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #60 on: July 07, 2010, 07:01:08 am »
No, I never said it should. Many older theories are still taught to children and explained why they are wrong - older pre-Darwin ideas about inheritance and evolution, for example, were taught to me along with the evidence against them. It wasn't of course given anywhere as much time as evolution through natural selection was - but it was still presented as a hypothesis. The same should be the case for religions.
[21:42:56] <@Muzer> Apple products used to be good, if expensive
[21:42:59] <@Muzer> now they are just expensive

Offline Kekerusey

  • Ikran Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 783
  • Karma: 11
    • Geekanology
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #61 on: July 07, 2010, 08:40:08 am »
No, I never said it should. Many older theories are still taught to children and explained why they are wrong - older pre-Darwin ideas about inheritance and evolution, for example, were taught to me along with the evidence against them. It wasn't of course given anywhere as much time as evolution through natural selection was - but it was still presented as a hypothesis. The same should be the case for religions.

I agree it should be presented (very briefly for reasons already given) as why we now consider such things wrong but I still take exception to your classification of such ideas as "hypotheses" because a hypothesis still has some evidential backing and a huge degree of "fit" into what we already accept ... if they were actual "hypotheses" then by all means we should spend [some] time on them in science but they aren't. Given that there are thousands upon thousands of distinct religions in existence (more that no longer are believed), each of which has an equal claim to being correct, I think we should spend an appropriate amount of time on each ... let's give them one lesson in toto so maybe 15 seconds each? Personally, considering the evidential support any of them has, I think that's being over-generous!

Keke
Kekerusey (Not Dead [Undead])
"Keye'ung lu nì'aw tì'eyng mì-kìfkey lekye'ung :)"
Geekanology, UK Atheist &
The "Science, Just Science” Campaign (A Cobweb)

Offline Muzer

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
  • Karma: 10
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #62 on: July 07, 2010, 09:07:17 am »
A hypothesis doesn't necessarily have to have any evidence. A hypothesis also doesn't necessarily have to be taken seriously, but since so many people do believe in the God hypothesis, it is worth at least considering - and of course, all serious considerations end up with the conclusion "God does not exist" - it is these considerations that should be taught. This is the sort of thing that I mean.
[21:42:56] <@Muzer> Apple products used to be good, if expensive
[21:42:59] <@Muzer> now they are just expensive

Offline Duma Vadamee {Aungia Tsawkeyä}

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
  • Karma: 6
  • The first covenant Na'vi soldier
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #63 on: July 07, 2010, 01:45:05 pm »
dont mind me interrupting, but what does god and religion have to do with teaching our kids Na'vi? :P

old gallery link?id=2254[/img]

Offline 'Ì'awn Menari

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • us United States
  • Karma: 16
  • Oe lu Eywayä 'ite. Proud Wiccan Na'vi ^_^
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #64 on: July 07, 2010, 01:53:07 pm »
Please for the love of Eywa don't get them started... ;)
Lord and Lady Bless )O(
and before I forget...
Eywa ngahu! =D

Offline Duma Vadamee {Aungia Tsawkeyä}

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
  • Karma: 6
  • The first covenant Na'vi soldier
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #65 on: July 07, 2010, 01:58:44 pm »
to late the disk is burned....

old gallery link?id=2254[/img]

Offline 'Ì'awn Menari

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • us United States
  • Karma: 16
  • Oe lu Eywayä 'ite. Proud Wiccan Na'vi ^_^
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #66 on: July 07, 2010, 02:00:51 pm »
damn it...hrh
Lord and Lady Bless )O(
and before I forget...
Eywa ngahu! =D

Offline Duma Vadamee {Aungia Tsawkeyä}

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
  • Karma: 6
  • The first covenant Na'vi soldier
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #67 on: July 07, 2010, 02:20:56 pm »
oh-rah ;)

old gallery link?id=2254[/img]

Offline 'Ì'awn Menari

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • us United States
  • Karma: 16
  • Oe lu Eywayä 'ite. Proud Wiccan Na'vi ^_^
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #68 on: July 07, 2010, 02:36:44 pm »
hrh
Lord and Lady Bless )O(
and before I forget...
Eywa ngahu! =D

Offline Tsufätu Ayioangä

  • Ikran Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: 21
  • Beast Trainer and Master
    • The Afanc's Lake - Tumblr
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #69 on: July 07, 2010, 03:53:18 pm »
I was actually thinking about trying to teach my little brother (he's five) but I'm afraid my parents would kill me :D

Offline 'Ì'awn Menari

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • us United States
  • Karma: 16
  • Oe lu Eywayä 'ite. Proud Wiccan Na'vi ^_^
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #70 on: July 07, 2010, 03:56:07 pm »
Hence i haven't told min that i'm learning  ::)
Lord and Lady Bless )O(
and before I forget...
Eywa ngahu! =D

Offline Tsufätu Ayioangä

  • Ikran Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 843
  • Karma: 21
  • Beast Trainer and Master
    • The Afanc's Lake - Tumblr
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #71 on: July 07, 2010, 03:57:30 pm »
My parents know and they're cool with it but I don't think they'd appreciate me teaching him.  he has said that he likes the 'flying blue monkeys with dragons' though so it's a start :D

Offline 'Ì'awn Menari

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • us United States
  • Karma: 16
  • Oe lu Eywayä 'ite. Proud Wiccan Na'vi ^_^
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #72 on: July 07, 2010, 04:04:15 pm »
that is a start  ;D
Lord and Lady Bless )O(
and before I forget...
Eywa ngahu! =D

Offline Kekerusey

  • Ikran Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 783
  • Karma: 11
    • Geekanology
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #73 on: July 07, 2010, 04:39:38 pm »
A hypothesis doesn't necessarily have to have any evidence. A hypothesis also doesn't necessarily have to be taken seriously, but since so many people do believe in the God hypothesis, it is worth at least considering - and of course, all serious considerations end up with the conclusion "God does not exist" - it is these considerations that should be taught. This is the sort of thing that I mean.

A scientific hypothesis does ... IMO when anyone serious uses the phrase "the god hypothesis" they are either 1. using the word poetically or 2. raising it hypothetically to the level of hypothesis (if that makes sense) in order to demonstrate (usually) that it is not in the slightest. To my knowledge no serious, unbiased, scientist regards claims to the existence of god to be an hypothesis, that isn't to say they don't believe, just that they accept the non-existence of the evidence and that they're belief is personal ... more to the point, if they did (and could back it up) there would be published peer-reviewed papers in support of it ... at time of writing there is not one single scientific explanation that either requests or requires the existence of deity (assumed or otherwise).

Outside of that I stick to what I have said earlier i.e. that no significant amount of time in a science class can (or should) be devoted to the claims of religions that are not supported by a shred of validatable evidence.

Keke
Kekerusey (Not Dead [Undead])
"Keye'ung lu nì'aw tì'eyng mì-kìfkey lekye'ung :)"
Geekanology, UK Atheist &
The "Science, Just Science” Campaign (A Cobweb)

Offline Kekerusey

  • Ikran Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 783
  • Karma: 11
    • Geekanology
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #74 on: July 07, 2010, 04:42:47 pm »
dont mind me interrupting, but what does god and religion have to do with teaching our kids Na'vi?

Because I said that the teaching of Na'vi to kids is a stupid an idea as teaching kids religion.

Keke
Kekerusey (Not Dead [Undead])
"Keye'ung lu nì'aw tì'eyng mì-kìfkey lekye'ung :)"
Geekanology, UK Atheist &
The "Science, Just Science” Campaign (A Cobweb)

Offline Muzer

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
  • Karma: 10
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #75 on: July 07, 2010, 04:52:45 pm »
But you needn't spend too long on it - I managed to take in all the major arguments against God from The God Delusion in one day, for instance.

As I said, a hypothesis is the lowest you can get - it is simply an idea, that has not yet been proven, that may or may not have evidence for it. In science, you cannot really ever prove something 100%, but you can usually disprove something 100%. Since so many people do believe in the God hypothesis, through indoctrination and ignorance, it only makes sense to let children know of the serious evidence against it, and the lack of evidence for it so that it can then be dismissed out of the way as being almost impossible to be true.
[21:42:56] <@Muzer> Apple products used to be good, if expensive
[21:42:59] <@Muzer> now they are just expensive

Tsamsiyu92

  • Guest
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #76 on: July 07, 2010, 05:06:49 pm »
^So it is morally wrong to babtize a child? What if it all existed, It has not been proved, but I have not read anything that disproves religion either. In many countires today, there's a freedom of religion, which is also a freedom to have a religion too...

But let's end this discussion before this thread ends up as a "the atheists vs the religious" thread.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 05:08:31 pm by Tsamsiyu92 »

Offline 'Ì'awn Menari

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • us United States
  • Karma: 16
  • Oe lu Eywayä 'ite. Proud Wiccan Na'vi ^_^
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #77 on: July 07, 2010, 05:42:05 pm »
fpom, fpom rutxe ma ayeylan.  can we just agree to disagree and leave it at that?  everyone has different opinions so rutxe mawe na'viya. 
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 05:58:49 pm by I'awn Menari »
Lord and Lady Bless )O(
and before I forget...
Eywa ngahu! =D

Offline 'Oma Tirea

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 3874
  • Karma: 50
  • Na'vi... sleru... rusti...
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #78 on: July 07, 2010, 10:52:28 pm »
fpom, fpom rutxe ma ayeylan.  can we just agree to disagree and leave it at that?  everyone has different opinions so rutxe mawey na'viya. 

Srane.  Oe mllte nìwotx!  Mawey, na'vi, ulte luyu lefpom.
[img]http://swokaikran.skxawng.lu/sigbar/nwotd.php?p=2b[/img]

ÌTXTSTXRR!!

Srake serar le'Ìnglìsìa lì'fyayä aylì'ut?  Nari si älofoniru rutxe!!

Offline Kekerusey

  • Ikran Makto
  • *****
  • Posts: 783
  • Karma: 11
    • Geekanology
Re: teaching children Na'vi?
« Reply #79 on: July 08, 2010, 04:17:28 am »
But you needn't spend too long on it - I managed to take in all the major arguments against God from The God Delusion in one day, for instance.

I'm talking about science lessons here ... one (as in one whole day, presumed maybe 10 or 12 hours) is what?? 3  or 4 weeks of science lessons? No way in hell! 1, 1 hour, lesson ... tops! The kids have science to learn rather than why crap shouldn't be taught.

As I said, a hypothesis is the lowest you can get - it is simply an idea, that has not yet been proven, that may or may not have evidence for it. In science, you cannot really ever prove something 100%, but you can usually disprove something 100%. Since so many people do believe in the God hypothesis, through indoctrination and ignorance, it only makes sense to let children know of the serious evidence against it, and the lack of evidence for it so that it can then be dismissed out of the way as being almost impossible to be true.

No, that isn't a hypothesis ... hypotheses still have a lot of supporting evidence and "fit" into what is currently understood but have yet to be regarded as a fully fledged theory (the highest possible explanation in scientific terms). Scientific hypothesis are proposed explanations for observable phenomena and therefore are required to be testable ... to my knowledge no essential religious claim is testable therefore they cannot be regarded as scientific hypotheses.

In science nothing is absolute (not even negation) all there is a weight of evidence i.e. it is highly unlikely that at the centre of the Earth there is a giant cream cake because of the huge weight of evidence supporting the current models of Earth construction ... nevertheless the possibility (vanishingly small) still exists that there is such a thing at the Earth's core.

And for the very same reason that we DON'T deal with earth-core cream cakes or men in the moon or tooth fairy stars or flat-earth or many other  "hypotheses"  (!!!!) we should not deal with religious claims for to do so (just giving them the same platform) artificially raises them to the level of actual hypothesis and/or theory in the public's (or children's) minds.

Keke
Kekerusey (Not Dead [Undead])
"Keye'ung lu nì'aw tì'eyng mì-kìfkey lekye'ung :)"
Geekanology, UK Atheist &
The "Science, Just Science” Campaign (A Cobweb)

 

Become LearnNavi's friend on Facebook Follow LearnNavi on Twitter! Watch LearnNavi's videos on YouTube

SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
| XHTML | RSS | WAP2 | Site Rules

LearnNavi is not affiliated with the official Avatar website,
James Cameron, LightStorm Entertainment or The Walt Disney Company.
All trademarks and servicemarks are the properties of their respective owners.
Images in the LearnNavi.org Forums and Gallery may not be used without permission.

LearnNavi Affiliates:
ToS

LearnNavi is the community to learn Na'vi, the Avatar Language
"A place where real friendships are made." -Paul Frommer

AvatarMeet | Learn Na'vi Forum | Learn Na'vi Wiki | Na'viteri

LearnNavi