• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

BCE/CE or BC/AD?

Which do you use?


  • Total voters
    47
It's funny because everyone's immediate response upon seeing this thread seemed to be "MUST USE NON-SECULAR TERMINOLOGY". And obscure non-secular terminology at that.

I just don't get the reasoning behind using BCE/CE?? Using them doesn't make your arguments inherently Christian. So what's the logic behind it? "Oh no, if I don't use the obscure non-secular term when referring to the date, the Pope will incept himself into my mind and make me die from internal hemorrhaging!!!"?
 
It's funny because everyone's immediate response upon seeing this thread seemed to be "MUST USE NON-SECULAR TERMINOLOGY". And obscure non-secular terminology at that.

How is it at all obscure? You're 13. It's used in higher education texts a lot.

I just don't get the reasoning behind using BCE/CE?? Using them doesn't make your arguments inherently Christian.

What?

So what's the logic behind it? "Oh no, if I don't use the obscure non-secular term when referring to the date, the Pope will incept himself into my mind and make me die from internal hemorrhaging!!!"?

You're just grossly exaggerating. "AD" means "in the year of our lord". He's certainly not my lord, and he's not for plenty of others, too. It's a simple choice.
 
You have your terminology mixed up - BCE/CE is secular, BC/AD isn't.

why did i not remember that asdfndsfndsifdoaodmaiosdmiadasdsfgh

Outside of serious academic papers I don't think I've seen anyone use the terms before... I understand you're not Christian but this is pretty inconsequential.
 
why did i not remember that asdfndsfndsifdoaodmaiosdmiadasdsfgh

Outside of serious academic papers I don't think I've seen anyone use the terms before... I understand you're not Christian but this is pretty inconsequential.

If you feel it's inconsequential, why does it matter enough that you're so bothered?

The whole point of trying to spread the terms is so that you'll see it outside of academia? That's... kind of how new terms work! If some terms make more sense than other terms and people would prefer to use them for fairly sensible reasons, then I don't really see why that should be mocked. And also, it is fairly consequential to continue measuring history using Christian or biblical terminology in an increasingly secular/multi-cultural world, so.
 
I was taught about BCE/CE when I was still in high school during religious education. It's not that crazy.

To add insult to injury, he used this while teaching Christianity. And being a Catholic.
 
Last edited:
why did i not remember that asdfndsfndsifdoaodmaiosdmiadasdsfgh

Outside of serious academic papers I don't think I've seen anyone use the terms before... I understand you're not Christian but this is pretty inconsequential.

(1) You're 13. Your knowledge of the world is not a standard by which to measure the silliness of other people.
(2) I knew about BCE/CE before I was your age and I'm in the second most Catholic country in Europe (and beyond that, 97% of the population believe in the Abrahamic God). The fact that you haven't seen BCE/CE used is a sign of a flaw in your education, not of a lack of use in the modern world.
(3) Quite apart from the social, religious and cultural implications of BC/AD, it is simply ludicrous to use it as a scale when some sources have Christ's estimated birth years before and after the year he was supposedly born on the BC/AD scale. Using a scale based on an uncertain date is pretty ridiculous.
 
Eh, I don't know. America is pretty far behind when it comes to that sort of stuff.

I'll shut up, though. Your arguments make more sense than mine.
 
The fact that you haven't seen BCE/CE used is a sign of a flaw in your education, not of a lack of use in the modern world.

Or maybe it's because most Americans use BC/AD?

(3) Quite apart from the social, religious and cultural implications of BC/AD, it is simply ludicrous to use it as a scale when some sources have Christ's estimated birth years before and after the year he was supposedly born on the BC/AD scale. Using a scale based on an uncertain date is pretty ridiculous.

Um... before you dig your hole even deeper, BCE/CE is based on the exact same timeframe as BC/AD. Do a little research.

Wikipedia said:
Both the BCE/CE and BC/AD notations are based on a sixth-century estimate for the year in which Jesus was conceived or born, with the common era designation originating among Christians in Europe at least as early as 1615 (at first in Latin).

This whole discussion about BCE/CE being somehow superior to BC/AD is, frankly, ridiculous. They both (originally) had religious meaning and they both use the birth of Jesus as their era maker. The only difference is one uses Jesus explicitly. If the goal is to remove every trace of religion from our year-numbering systems, we sure as hell aren't there yet.
 
The thing is the way we choose to number our calendar is entirely arbitrary, so we might as well stick with something that doesn't suddenly require us to change every calendar just because we can. It's practical to keep our current calendar, but we don't want to be associated with the fairy tale that accompanies it - the real reason is that the current calendar makes a lot of sense and fairly accurately describes our movement through space.

I mean we still use degrees Celsius when using Kelvin makes much more sense. Or even Fahrenheit. It's just that Celsius is much more built in and intuitive.
 
Eh? Before Common Era and Common Era makes perfect sense.

I am referring to the fact that 1 CE is not more "common" than 1 BCE whereas 1 AD and 1BC are distinguished by the appearance of Jesus (although I don't actually believe it is still a difference).
 
Just want to pop in and say that AD means "anno domini" meaning "in the year of the lord" as opposed to "our".

To my knowledge it is short for a longer expression with the intended meaning "in the year of our lord Jesus Christ".

And just because Karkat is 13 doesn't mean he can't find something silly, validly. Using age as a counter-argument is a pretty poor debating tactic, if you ask me.

That is not what TES said. He said that just because Karkat had not often encountered BCE/CE did not mean it was uncommon, which is a perfectly good point to make.
 
Or maybe it's because most Americans use BC/AD?

I use BC/AD myself, as do most Irish people, but I still see BCE/CE used and I still know of it.

Um... before you dig your hole even deeper, BCE/CE is based on the exact same timeframe as BC/AD. Do a little research.

I know that, thanks. The difference is that BCE/CE says "here, this is a nice point to measure things from" and BC/AD says "oh, this happened a certain amount of time before Jesus Christ was born, even though, on this scale, some sources claim that he was born before he was born".

This whole discussion about BCE/CE being somehow superior to BC/AD is, frankly, ridiculous. They both (originally) had religious meaning and they both use the birth of Jesus as their era maker. The only difference is one uses Jesus explicitly. If the goal is to remove every trace of religion from our year-numbering systems, we sure as hell aren't there yet.

No, they both use a date that some sources estimate to be the birth of Jesus as their era maker. The difference is that from a BCE/CE standpoint, it's just a good, convenient point to use, whereas from a BC/AD standpoint, it's a point on which a certain event may have happened and is therefore a bit of a flaky scale to measure time on, especially since you can legitimately argue that Christ was born several years before Christ.
 
I've encountered the terminology before; it's just that here in the States it's nowhere near as commonly used as BC/AD.

Come to think of it, AD/CE are just really redundant terms in general; I never use either when referring to the year and unless you're referring to events that occurred prior to 1 AD it's pointless to include them period. Why do we even use them?
 
I've encountered the terminology before; it's just that here in the States it's nowhere near as commonly used as BC/AD.

Come to think of it, AD/CE are just really redundant terms in general; I never use either when referring to the year and unless you're referring to events that occurred prior to 1 AD it's pointless to include them period. Why do we even use them?

Because when we do need to distinguish, we need something! Do you not think this might be partly why you probably haven't seen BCE/CE much outside academic texts - because, like you say, there isn't much need to use them anyway? There are a lot more dates in academic texts than in daily conversation. :D
 
I am referring to the fact that 1 CE is not more "common" than 1 BCE whereas 1 AD and 1BC are distinguished by the appearance of Jesus (although I don't actually believe it is still a difference).

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.
 
Because when we do need to distinguish, we need something! Do you not think this might be partly why you probably haven't seen BCE/CE much outside academic texts - because, like you say, there isn't much need to use them anyway? There are a lot more dates in academic texts than in daily conversation. :D

That's a good point, but it doesn't answer the question of why we need to use AD/CE to begin with-- if there's a BC/BCE at the end, it's past 1 AD/CE, and if there isn't, it's after 1 AD/CE. This seems like a perfectly logical system to me, and it avoids all that "Anno Domini" shit that seems to bother everyone.
 
Back
Top Bottom