I always ignore anyone who uses BCE/CEAnyone else like me?
I don't care, cause BCE/CE is just BC/AD relabeled. It's like caring what color you paint the cathedral. It's still a cathedral.
>>18480780>BEFORE CHRIST ETERNAL/AFTER CHRIST ETERNAL
I never use AD/CE
>>18480780I think it's pointless to care about that sort of shit. I use them interchangeably.
I take BCE and CE as a sign of potential bias, but nothing more.
>>18480780The BC/AD system is flawed because it's based on an incorrect assumption. Dionysius Exiguus got Jesus' birth year completely wrong. BCE/CE makes more sense even though it uses the same epoch because at least it doesn't pretend like it's meant to be based on anything other than the beginning of the "common era" which is basically when the west decided it was time to adopt a proper calendar. It's why many historians prefer it to BC/AD
>>18480919>BCE/CE makes more sense even though it uses the same epoch because at least it doesn't pretend like it's meant to be based on anything other than the beginning of the "common era" which is basically when the west decided it was time to adopt a proper calendar. This distinction is pointless since the common era is still the traditional birth of Christ. It changes absolutely nothing.
>>18480934>since the common era is still the traditional birth of Christ.But it isn't. That's the point. Most historians agree that Jesus was born around 5 BC, not 1 AD. The BC/AD system is based on an incorrect assumption.
>>18480780A secular approach to history is important, but either is perfectly valid to me.You could just as easily consider the change as the fall of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire, which was real close to the time of Jesus's birth (27BC). A lot of shit was going down in the Mediterranean at that time.
>>18480780>Before common eraWhat is common between the years before and after 1"ce"? It's Christianity derangement syndrome
>>18480937The point is that regardless of whether it is historically accurate or not, BCE and CE still use that same traditional birth of Christ to designate the "common era" as BC and AD. What makes it the common era? The birth of Christ. That's it, nothing else. Like I said, it changes absolutely nothing.
>>18480948>What is common between the years before and after 1"ce"?The western world decided on a common epoch. That's it. Jesus was not born on 1 AD so the BC/AD system itself isn't even based on his birth.
>>18480951>The western world decided on a common epochNo they didn't lol. You're just making stuff up. The "western world" collectively was not Christian for hundreds of years and consequently did not start using the birth of Christ as year 0 for much longer. All relabling a religious calendar shows is a fear of our own civilizations religious heritage.
>>18480954>No they didn't lol.Yes they did. They didn't do it right away, the BC/AD system itself was invented 500 years after Jesus for example, but the western world did in fact eventually decide on a common epoch, and that common epoch was 1 AD/CE. 1 AD was not Jesus' birth year so it just feels dishonest calling his birth the starting point of the epoch, that's partially why CE was adopted by a lot of academics, it has nothing to do with denying religious heritage, some Christians themselves will sometimes use CE/BCE
>>18480959My point is that the calendar was not invented at the time of its year zero but 500 years after, and not even widely used until even almost a thousand years after. The event they traditionally decided to measure it on was important and reflected what they found important. Changing the labeling as you agree changes nothing except ignoring the unifying religious observance that led to it becoming widespread in the first place. Very sad, and tends to be associated with liking penis in one's butt for some reason...
>>18480962He doth protest too much about anal sex.
>>18480780So, if you wanted to create a purely secular dating system, what event would you replace Jesus' birth with as Day Zero?
>>18480983French Republican calendar
>>18480983BDJT-ADJT
>>18480780I'll respond, though I know you'll ignore me.
>>18480983Current Year: 250 A.R. (After Revolution)
>>18480780we need to change the dates. i suggest columbus' landing as a year 1.it's the year where from then on the old and new world will become one - all of human civilization is aware of each other, and will be united.
>>18480997>i suggest columbus' landing as a year 1.Columbus was a retard who thought he landed in India. Amerigo Vespucci was the first European who actually realized that the Americas were their own previously unexplored continents in 1501. That's why the continent is named after him and not Columbus
>>18480985Get that decimal shit outta here
>>18480983Pic related.>One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.If that isn't the dawn of a new age of history, I don't know what is.
>>18480780Saturday is named after Saturn, Thursday is named after Thor, June is named after Juno, March is named after Mars. There's a definite trend of dates being named after gods and no one has a problem with it, so renaming BC/AD just to avoid the Christian connotation seems overly reactive. There's no good secular reason to set 1 AD where it is except that it corresponds to a traditional date for Jesus' birth. If the atheists ever achieve total victory, Jesus will be fondly remembered as the god who was significant enough that our entire year system still revolves around him.
>>18481020What if there are no further successful moon landings?
>>18481032NTA but even if there weren't any successful moon landings beyond Apollo 11, it's more about what the first moon landing represents, which is to say it was the first time humans proved they were capable of leaving planet Earth and venturing beyond its atmosphere. Even if this was never repeated, it's still nonetheless a major turning point and milestone in human history
>>18480937And what paperwork and documents are these historians basing that on? Jesus' birth certificate perhaps?
>>18480780It's Reiwa 8. You christcucks suck shit.
>>18480780
>>18480983Harambe's death.>May 28, 2016We're almost into the 10th year post-Harambe.But as an actual answer, some date in the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution. As that's where our current era is derived from.
>>18481020That's pretty good, but I'm not sure if it's better than the Enlightenment/Industrial Revolution.
>>18481063A very secure dating based on astronomical observations of Herod the Great's death in 4 BC.
>>18480983The fall of Rome
>>18480983Founding of rome. We are in 2779 AUC.
>>18480983The Trinity Test
>>18481020>>18481137This is basically just counting years Before Present (0 BP = January 1, 1950 AD) which is within about a decade of important events like the invention of radiometric dating, the atomic bomb, manned space travel, and discovery of the double helix of DNA.
>>18480983End of WW2
I say we just wait till our first space colony But I am Catholic and proud so I would still use bc/ad to be contrarian
>>18481135>>18481136Has the same issue as using dates relating to Jesus, only relevant to specific cultures and parts of the world
>>18480780I don't ignore them, but I do roll my eyes at them when they do. If they want to start shit over that im happy to debate them.
>>18480983Columbus discovering the New World (I'd round it from 1492 to 1500 for ease of converting dates though).Only the invention of agriculture changed human existence in a more fundamental and far reaching way.
>>18480780BCE/CE is the virtue signalling atheist retard alarm
>>18480780Just use BS o algo
>>18481428Nepal is brown and its impact on the world is cripplingly minute compared to white peoples countries
>>18480780>I always ignore anyone who uses BCE/CEYou mean jews?>>18480983I wouldn't
Why do you people fucking careEven in Mesoamerican studies, who have the most reason to give a shit about the Western-centricness of BC/AD, tons of researchers still use that format: It's a complete tossup if a paper uses BC/AD or BCE/CE, nobody really cares or minds either wayit's not a big deal
>>18481442This is how the jews win
>>18481434> its impact on the world is cripplingly minute compared to white peoples countriesThink again
it should be BJ/AJ just so we can say BJ lololol
>>18480780What's wrong with Before Christ's Era and Christ's Era?
>>18481304The entire world revolves around Rome. There is not a single country in the world right now that isn't directly influenced by Rome and its consequences.
