Current Events > What are your thoughts on BC/AD vs. BCE/CE

(+) Yeah! (+)

topic
---

BC/AD

Caps
---

CE/BCE is still based on the exact same reference points, so it's just dishonest.

Kinda like "people of color" vs "non-white/minority". When POC is defined as "everyone but white people", you're just sugarcoating.

BCE/CE = B, so why isn't it BC/AD vs B?
---

I still prefer BC/AD. BCE and CE seem like a pointless change.
---

I prefer BCE/CE because BC and AD is antiquated by now
---

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

CE/BCE is still based on the exact same reference points, so it's just dishonest.

How so?

Kinda like "people of color" vs "non-white/minority". When POC is defined as "everyone but white people", you're just sugarcoating.

No, it's saying I don't want to call this person god/messiah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwXgISX10Us" data-time="
---

I'm an AC/DC man
---

BC/AD

It's too late to change it now. You can change the name but it's still the same thing.
---

BC and AD, because I'm a Christian. Also, it sounds more bad ass.

BC/AD

It's shorter and all that the BCE/CE system does is directly state that the common era began with a Christian belief, so a secularization attempt actually does the opposite thing, imho.

I'd honestly advocate a new year 1 if you don't want to use a religious-themed year system. Real talk, let's make 1945 the new year 1. We're about to enter year 74, baby.
---

Atheist here, I really don't give a fuck. I use BC and AD because it's what I'm more used to, but honestly, use whatever one. Everyone knows what it means either way.
---

Maybe we should make it so the meteor that hit 12,000 years ago is the starting point.
---

it still refers to before and after christ so how does calling it something different matter

saying it doesnt mean you believe in anything lol
---

SSJCAT posted...

it still refers to before and after christ so how does calling it something different matter

saying it doesnt mean you believe in anything lol

Saying BC/AD is saying you believe Jesus is the Messiah/the lord. Yeah, I know loads of people say it, without believing it.

JE19426 posted...

SSJCAT posted...

it still refers to before and after christ so how does calling it something different matter

saying it doesnt mean you believe in anything lol

Saying BC/AD is saying you believe Jesus is the Messiah/the lord. Yeah, I know loads of people say it, without believing it.

no it isnt
---

SSJCAT posted...

no it isnt

Yes it does. "Chirst" means "Messiah". "AD" is short for "anno Domini" which is latin for "in the year of the Lord".

JE19426 posted...

SSJCAT posted...

it still refers to before and after christ so how does calling it something different matter

saying it doesnt mean you believe in anything lol

Saying BC/AD is saying you believe Jesus is the Messiah/the lord. Yeah, I know loads of people say it, without believing it.

Using that logic, saying BCE/CE is saying you believe our universal current era began with Jesus' birth, which means it was a momentous event for all humanity.
---

VectorChaos posted...

I'm an AC/DC man

---

Im just more used to BC and AD

Besides, "anno domini" sounds pretty cool

BCE and CE sounds kind of like trying too hard to change language to try not offending people... bleh
---

JE19426 posted...

SSJCAT posted...

no it isnt

Yes it does. "Chirst" means "Messiah". "AD" is short for "anno Domini" which is latin for "in the year of the Lord".

just because you are referencing a point in time before or after the supposed crucification of jesus does not mean that you believe in christ or are a christian or anything else and its silly to think that imo
---

K181 posted...

Using that logic, saying BCE/CE is saying you believe our universal current era began with Jesus' birth, which means it was a momentous event for all humanity.

Not really. CE originally stood for "Christian Era", meaning it's how Christian's measure time. It changed to "Common Era", to recognise that it is used by more than just Christians.

SSJCAT posted...

just because you are referencing a point in time before or after the supposed crucification of jesus does not mean that you believe in christ or are a christian or anything else and its silly to think that imo

Lmao, I see what you did.

sorry crucifixion lol
---

But that's the point, it still references the same thing. Why is 1 CE the start of the Common Era? Well, people a thousand and a half years ago thought that was when Jesus was born. Why paint over the name of a year system (and imply something more than the original does) rather than start a new year system?
---

SSJCAT posted...

sorry crucifixion lol

Lmao, I still see what you are doing.

K181 posted...

But that's the point, it still references the same thing. Why is 1 CE the start of the Common Era? Well, people a thousand and a half years ago thought that was when Jesus was born. Why paint over the name of a year system (and imply something more than the original does) rather than start a new year system?

Why make a whole new system of counting dates, instead of just renaming the current one.

JE19426 posted...

SSJCAT posted...

sorry crucifixion lol

Lmao, I still see what you are doing.

K181 posted...

But that's the point, it still references the same thing. Why is 1 CE the start of the Common Era? Well, people a thousand and a half years ago thought that was when Jesus was born. Why paint over the name of a year system (and imply something more than the original does) rather than start a new year system?

Why make a whole new system of counting dates, instead of just renaming the current one.

Because do actual secularization rather than fake secularization that actually implies that Jesus' birth was the start of the common era we live in.
---

K181 posted...

Because do actual secularization rather than fake secularization that actually implies that Jesus' birth was the start of the common era we live in.

There's nothing fake secularisation about it. The most commonly used calendar era starts 1BC/BCE. It's perfectly secular to acknowledge that.

Again, you're missing the point. Why is 1 CE the starting date? Because of a religious belief.

So, calling that the start of the common era of all humanity emphasizes the importance of Christianity far more that just the old name system and saying it was a holdover.
---

K181 posted...

Again, you're missing the point. Why is 1 CE the starting date? Because of a religious belief.

So, calling that the start of the common era of all humanity emphasizes the importance of Christianity far more that just the old name system and saying it was a holdover.

I don't think you understand what a calendar era is. It just a number system used to date caladars, it doesn't mean something important happened at that time. "Common Era" just means this is the most common number system used.

That's the thing, you're keeping a religious-originated system and just saying it was the common or current era, which implies a greater significance to the people that still hold a religious meaning to it. It's a lazy attempt ignoring the issue and adding more credence to the religious nature being special.

Just circle back to that question, why is 1 the start of the common era? A religious reason, so why change the name when you're keeping the reason?
---

K181 posted...

It's a lazy attempt ignoring the issue and adding more credence to the religious nature being special.

No it's not. It's just saying it's commonly used.

I think we need a Kelvin type dating system so we can skip all this semantic bullshit

Let's start at the creation of earth, roughly 4.5B years ago

Now the year is 4,500,002,018 AE (after earth)

We'll just truncate the first six digits in common parlance because they ain't changing for a minute
---

I use BC/AD. BCE/CE is just a failed attempt at erasing Christ. Failed because it still uses His birth as the starting point.
---

The-Apostle posted...

I use BC/AD. BCE/CE is just a failed attempt at erasing Christ. Failed because it still uses His birth as the starting point.

You can use the birth of Jesus, without believing he is Christ.

JE19426 posted...

The-Apostle posted...

I use BC/AD. BCE/CE is just a failed attempt at erasing Christ. Failed because it still uses His birth as the starting point.

You can use the birth of Jesus, without believing he is Christ.

It was a deliberate attempt at removing Christ from the equation though.
---

The-Apostle posted...

It was a deliberate attempt at removing Christ from the equation though.

In th sense it was an atttempt to refer to him as "Christ" when you don't believe he is "Christ" sure. It's not an attempt to remove Jesus from the equation.

JE19426 posted...

The-Apostle posted...

It was a deliberate attempt at removing Christ from the equation though.

In th sense it was an atttempt to refer to him as "Christ" when you don't believe he is "Christ" sure. It's not an attempt to remove Jesus from the equation.

I don't believe that at all.
---

The-Apostle posted...

I don't believe that at all.

Ok.

Oh dang, we aren't talking about message boards
---