BCE/CE or BC/AD?

[thunder]

Common doesn't mean it's a common date. Common just means that it is in common use and refers to how Westerners commonly use the calendar.

Which is just saying that they mean "based on BC and AD, but we figured new initials would be nice".

This does not change the fat that nothing happened in 1 CE different to 1 BCE and that there is really no reason to use them, they are just BC and AD except with less obvious meaning.

 

[Tarvos]

Which is just saying that they mean "based on BC and AD, but we figured new initials would be nice".

Nuh huh. It means it's based on the calendar the western world (and parts of the eastern world) have unilaterally adopted. Many of the world's population do NOT believe in Jesus Christ. For them, BC and AD mean nothing. In this case, the secular BCE/CE (which can just be used predefining the common point splitting BCE and CE) is independent of the actual birth of Jesus Christ. If a definite date for BC/AD is found, that calendar will change. Our calendar is simply a useful system and we didn't want to change it, but we don't want to associate it directly with Christian mythology.

This does not change the fat that nothing happened in 1 CE different to 1 BCE and that there is really no reason to use them, they are just BC and AD except with less obvious meaning.

1 CE and 1 BCE are different. You mean 1 BC and one CE. No, nothing different happened, except we decoupled it from religion, and defined it using a method that historians agree on as accurate. No problems.

 

[thunder]

1 CE and 1 BCE are different. You mean 1 BC and one CE.

I was referring to the fact that if we ignore the religious parts there is no logic to splitting BCE and CE at that time and that it would make as much sense as to have split them this year.

 

[surskitty]

There's completely logic to it: it's the same splitting point as the most common calendar and given new information, it (unlike the most common calendar) won't change. o-o

 

[Tarvos]

I was referring to the fact that if we ignore the religious parts there is no logic to splitting BCE and CE at that time and that it would make as much sense as to have split them this year.

Maybe you should read what I wrote again. It clearly gives you reasoning.

 

[Phantom]

Personally I don't use either exclusively. I would use BCE/CE exclusively, and I'd like to say I do, but I am simply so used to BC/AD that I use it without thinking most of the time.

I was referring to the fact that if we ignore the religious parts there is no logic to splitting BCE and CE at that time and that it would make as much sense as to have split them this year.

Here's a reason, imagine the issues that would come out of splitting the two at another time period. We've been using this system for so long that if we separate them at a different time it will unravel most history and make a lot of history textbooks and museums change all their dates, which would cost money... Money is always an issue.

I am going to be attacked now aren't I?

 

[thunder]

If it (CE/BCE) is based on the calendar as commonly used and the calendar as commonly used is based on the supposed birth of Jesus, then it (CE/BCE) is based (albeit indirectly) on the birth of Jesus and therefore does not remove the religious basis, it merely attempts to hide it by using different initials.
Taking the above as true, the aim of removing the religious reference has not been met and it is therefore pointless.

As to the idea of AD/BC being meaningless to many people, while many do not believe in Christianity most people are familiar enough with the idea to know the meaning of AD/BC, more than the number of people who would understand CE/BCE.

 

[Tarvos]

As to the idea of AD/BC being meaningless to many people, while many do not believe in Christianity most people are familiar enough with the idea to know the meaning of AD/BC, more than the number of people who would understand CE/BCE.

nah, BC/BCE is taught in high school, most people should be familiar with it

If it (CE/BCE) is based on the calendar as commonly used and the calendar as commonly used is based on the supposed birth of Jesus, then it (CE/BCE) is based (albeit indirectly) on the birth of Jesus and therefore does not remove the religious basis, it merely attempts to hide it by using different initials.

No, it does not. Please read what other posters say before you repeat the same thing over and over, the point is that we keep the same calendar, but that it will not change with evidence of the change of the birth of Jesus Christ. Furthermore we simply don't want to have to change all our calendars just to make ours secular, we just rebrand it since atheists also use the western calendar because it is practical.

this is something different from changing the initials just because DO NOT WANT RELIGION. we want something that has a fixed historical definition instead of something variable with shitty evidence for it, and we succeeded, and to do that you must also secularize the calendar. Nothing wrong.

Now please stop being close minded ok

Taking the above as true, the aim of removing the religious reference has not been met and it is therefore pointless.

Why not? All we wanted is a practical calendar that has no direct link to mythology. The same reason atheists still celebrate Christmas, you know. Some festivities and items were religious, but a calendar is of use to everyone. There's nothing wrong with secularizing it.

 

[Ruby]

I always use BC/AD. It's the fantasy fan in me. Seriously though, the fact that "not all sources agree when Jesus was born" is probably the weakest conceivable argument for changing the system. It's a complete waste of time trying to make sure that every little abbreviation and turn of phrase in the language is historically accurate. What actual benefit would doing this have?

 

[Eclipse]

Since I grew up in Christian private-schools, of course we use BC/AD. I don't protest and actually encourage the use of BCE/CE mainly because it's more scientific.

But like Ruby said, besides being politically correct, there's no actual point. Besides well, invoking a historian beer fight by using BC/AD after they try to figure out when Jesus was born, ha.

 

[Fireworks]

I much rather prefer using BCE/CE but most people use BC/AD around here so I sometimes end up unintentionally saying BC/AD instead as well due to hearing it being used so much.