BC/AD vs BCE/CE

[Your Star]

It explains how you're wrong about ties to Christianity and rebutts your attempt to deny the ties ever existed. In that, you were wrong.

I'm not saying ties never existed, however, I am saying that defining our understanding of time to those events is clearly not appropriate when considering other cultures, who may not believe in Christianity.

While an excellent strawman, no one is claiming North American did NOT exist before Europeans colonized it, the quote you used from me shows that North America was colonized BECAUSE of Christian issue with the Church of England, therefore the colonization and what later becomes the United States had ties directly to Christianity and has ever since.


You still have not provided any information as to why BCE/CE is more appropriate than BC/AD, as your previous points have been show to be incorrect.

The Native Americans have a vast history of their own which predates any colonization, and human history in North America predates Christianity itself with the migration across the Bering strait 17-25 thousand years ago.

While Christianity is very important to our history, it is not such a widespread and defining enough factor to use as a time stamp for all of human history. BC and BCE are more appropriate because of what I've explained here, and you cherry picking events and tying them to Christianity, especially when there are several non-religious factors for each of those events happening, is not sufficient enough evidence to claim that the use of BC and AD is appropriate.

 

[Your Star]

I find it funny that you are completely glossing over the point that BCE/CE is just as abritrary and ties the switch over to the exact same event - the culturall accepted date for the birth of Christ. If the switch over was tied to a different date, then you may have a point. But, as it is, you don't.

And how likely do you think it will be that Christianity will decide to change the date for the birth of Christ? Seriously, that is probably the absolute weakest argument I have ever heard.

Not very likely, however, I was just pointing out that the arbitrariness of religion is not a reliable way to frame our history.

Not entirely, we haven't. Many in academia still use BC and AD. Don't make generalizations.

Usually older people who are too set in their ways to change and people with political agendas. Most mainstream academics use BCE and CE, however.

 

[Jredbaron96]

So OLD = BAD, NEW = GOOD is the logic here.

Sure, if you want to simplify it. I'm not going to use an outdated system when there's a better one that I can make use of.

 

[Koros]

Not very likely, however, I was just pointing out that the arbitrariness of religion is not a reliable way to frame our history.

Which is exactly why switching to BCE/CE is completely pointless, since it uses the exact same religious event as the switching point.

Seriously, are you ignoring that pont on purpose?

Usually older people who are too set in their ways to change and people with political agendas. Most mainstream academics use BCE and CE, however.

So, because I find the switch pointless I'm either old or have a political agenda?

I'd LOVE to see the support you have for that opinion.

 

[Paxaeon]

`
1 - My daughters in grade school and High School are learning things in metric. Within 20 years or so, the old measuring system will be gone in favor of the metric system. It's a slow, gradual thing. I see it's scientific and universal usefulness and value.

2 - I use BC/AD because I want to. It's just a PC name change with absolutely no scientific value. I have no problem however with people using BCE/CE unless they attempt to force it on me. Personally, I still see a lot of BC/AD still used in many academic papers. To be fair however, it doesn't really matter what people want to call it.
`

 

[Koros]

Sure, if you want to simplify it. I'm not going to use an outdated system when there's a better one that I can make use of.

And yet, no one has been able to defend why the BCE/CE system IS better.

 

[Ockham]

I'm not saying ties never existed, however, I am saying that defining our understanding of time to those events is clearly not appropriate when considering other cultures, who may not believe in Christianity.

History and religious belief are separate. It IS appropriate considering other cultures who do not believe in Christianity. Denying history based on political correctness is absurd. You still have not provided a logical or factual reason why you think it IS appropriate other than considering other cultures. What you're advocating is validating one view of an issue by invalidating another by the use of language. That's a version of oppression. Is that the end goal here?

The Native Americans have a vast history of their own which predates any colonization, and human history in North America predates Christianity itself with the migration across the Bering strait 17-25 thousand years ago.

Yet we're not discussing the use of their calendar... which were seasonal and not written down, so this is still irrelevant to the topic.

While Christianity is very important to our history, it is not such a widespread and defining enough factor to use as a time stamp for all of human history. BC and BCE are more appropriate because of what I've explained here, and you cherry picking events and tying them to Christianity, especially when there are several non-religious factors for each of those events happening, is not sufficient enough evidence to claim that the use of BC and AD is appropriate.

No it's not more appropriate... it's yet more political correctness. The view of appropriateness in your case is biased, yet not based on facts. PC is denigrating one view by claiming superiority of another view. I still have not seen facts to back up your assertion. If it's just your un-founded opinion, that's fine.

 

[Your Star]

Which is exactly why switching to BCE/CE is completely pointless, since it uses the exact same religious event as the switching point.

Seriously, are you ignoring that pont on purpose?

I'm not ignoring it, I just find it a moot point. It does not factor into the discussion, really. It's more about not tying out history with a religious event that the majority of the people don't believe. It's about not having our secular history tied to religion.

So, because I find the switch pointless I'm either old or have a political agenda?

I'd LOVE to see the support you have for that opinion.

I think it's pretty clear you have a political agenda.

 

[Ockham]

Sure, if you want to simplify it. I'm not going to use an outdated system when there's a better one that I can make use of.

It's not a very sound basis in logic or facts. However, you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Read the OP. That's addressed.

he accuracy of the birth of Jesus (either as a historical figure or religious one) is irrelevant to the discussion. Since both the BC/AD changeover and the BCE/CE changover occur at the same point, accuracy of one versus the other becomes moot.

Except, no, it is relevant. Jesus of Nazareth is accepted to to have been born sometime between 2 BC and 7 BC. So, we'll put it at 3 BC. So we're literally saying Jesus was born 2 years Before the Birth of Christ. I'm not going to write out a self-contradicting statement like that, so I use CE and BCE because they just use the same start date as BC AD, but have no connection to Jesus of Nazareth's birth, so when I type out Jesus of Nazareth was born 3 years Before Common Era, there's no contradiction.

Plus, BCE is a cool acronym.

 

[Koros]

I'm not ignoring it, I just find it a moot point. It does not factor into the discussion, really. It's more about not tying out history with a religious event that the majority of the people don't believe. It's about not having our secular history tied to religion.

So, the fact that both sets of terms are tied to the EXACT SAME EVENT makes ONE religious in nature and ONE secular in nature? That's a leap of logic that utterly astounds me.

I think it's pretty clear you have a political agenda.

The only one showing a political agenda here, is you. I'm just arging from a point of logic. You're arguing from an anti-religious bent.

 

[Koros]

Except, no, it is relevant. Jesus of Nazareth is accepted to to have been born sometime between 2 BC and 7 BC. So, we'll put it at 3 BC. So we're literally saying Jesus was born 2 years Before the Birth of Christ. I'm not going to write out a self-contradicting statement like that, so I use CE and BCE because they just use the same start date as BC AD, but have no connection to Jesus of Nazareth's birth, so when I type out Jesus of Nazareth was born 3 years Before Common Era, there's no contradiction.

Plus, BCE is a cool acronym.

Well, the "cool" part is useless in the discussion, so that's dismissed.

Then, answer me this question. When does the Common Era begin, and why that date?

 

[Jredbaron96]

It's not a very sound basis in logic or facts.

...what?

So, you're going to continue to use an older system even though there's a better one out? Who's the one without a basis in Logic or facts? The only reason you'd stick to the older model would be sentimental value, which as Mr. Spock would point out, is very illogical.

I'm not talking about BCE/CE BC/AD here, I'm speaking generally. Yes, I'm going to use the newer system if it's better, which it likely will be, because that's the point of making a new system. I mean, unless you think a Model T can outrun a Nissan Qashqai.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Well, the "cool" part is useless in the discussion, so that's dismissed.

Maybe to you.

When does the Common Era begin, and why that date?

The Common Era begins at 0 BCE/ 0 CE, and because it marks the end of the Before Common Era.

 

[Ockham]

Why not just let people believe or not believe as they see fit? Shoving new secular language as an attempt to mitigate Christianity's affect on the world historically or in present is creepy. What gets me is the anti-Christian view that's hiding behind terms like "accurate" or "generally accepted". What this is really about is removing Christianity from people's lives to further the atheist viewpoint going forward. My view is, don't deny history and don't try to mitigate it by using PC language - rewriting history isn't a good thing for anyone. New doesn't mean better or more accurate. Let people do what they want to do ... if you want to deny Christianity go for it. Just don't push it on everyone else.

 

[Koros]

Maybe to you.

To the discussion.

The Common Era begins at 0 BCE/ 0 CE, and because it marks the end of the Before Common Era.

Circular reasoning.

Why does the Common Era begin when it does? Why that date?

 

[Gaius46]

I'm not saying ties never existed, however, I am saying that defining our understanding of time to those events is clearly not appropriate when considering other cultures, who may not believe in Christianity.



The Native Americans have a vast history of their own which predates any colonization, and human history in North America predates Christianity itself with the migration across the Bering strait 17-25 thousand years ago.

While Christianity is very important to our history, it is not such a widespread and defining enough factor to use as a time stamp for all of human history. BC and BCE are more appropriate because of what I've explained here, and you cherry picking events and tying them to Christianity, especially when there are several non-religious factors for each of those events happening, is not sufficient enough evidence to claim that the use of BC and AD is appropriate.

You don't stamp out Christianity's influence on the calendar simply by changing a couple of acronyms. The Gregorian calendar is still a Christian calendar regardless of whether you call it BC or BCE.

 

[Your Star]

History and religious belief are separate. It IS appropriate considering other cultures who do not believe in Christianity. Denying history based on political correctness is absurd. You still have not provided a logical or factual reason why you think it IS appropriate other than considering other cultures. What you're advocating is validating one view of an issue by invalidating another by the use of language. That's a version of oppression. Is that the end goal here?

:lol: That's one interesting definition of oppression you have. Using BCE and CE does not invalidate western culture, or even Christian culture. It is a benign acronym, unlike BC and AD, which aren't really benign and if anything invalidate every other culture and religion. Doing precisely what you claim to want to avoid.

Yet we're not discussing the use of their calendar... which were seasonal and not written down, so this is still irrelevant to the topic.

It 100% matters. It is apart of our history that we know about, and that we have a pretty good time frame of. It for sure relates to this discussion.

No it's not more appropriate... it's yet more political correctness. The view of appropriateness in your case is biased, yet not based on facts. PC is denigrating one view by claiming superiority of another view. I still have not seen facts to back up your assertion. If it's just your un-founded opinion, that's fine.

Political correctness is not denigrating one view by claiming superiority of another, that is just absurd. Political correctness is the understanding that your experiences and your worldview are not the only ones, and just because you experienced it that way, that simple fact doesn't make it inherently better. It is a striving to understand other people's point of view, and not invalidate each other's experiences by our language and actions; it's simple common courtesy.

I have provided many facts that support my position, however, you just seem to want to gloss over them. I have no idea how you cherry picking historical events that involved Christians justifies using BC and AD as a reference point for all of history to you, while acknowledging that Christianity is not all that relevant to various other cultures, past and present isn't a fact to you.

It seems to me that in your support of BC and AD that you are doing precisely what you are accusing me of doing. You are invalidating someone else by claiming that your views are superior, and you are doing this through the use of language. While BCE and CE doesn't do any of that. So, by your own logic, it seems to me that you should be in support of BCE and CE. I rest my case.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Circular reasoning.

Why does the Common Era begin when it does? Why that date?

Because it's easier to switch the acronyms then changing everything back a couple years.

You want me to say because that's when Jesus of Nazareth was previously thought to be born in, which is correct. But now we know that's incorrect, that he was born sometime before that. So instead of switching the year back 2-7 years, we switch the acronym. Continuing to use BC/AD is using an inaccurate system of dating, and I'll stick to one that isn't incorrect by definition. I'm not going to use a ruler that had 1.5 inches between the 2 and 3 inch mark, and I'm not going to use a dating system that is by definition off by a couple to several years.

 

[Your Star]

You don't stamp out Christianity's influence on the calendar simply by changing a couple of acronyms. The Gregorian calendar is still a Christian calendar regardless of whether you call it BC or BCE.

No one is trying to stamp out Christianities influence. That is a strawman.

 

[Koros]

Because it's easier to switch the acronyms then changing everything back a couple years.

You want me to say because that's when Jesus of Nazareth was previously thought to be born in, which is correct. But now we know that's incorrect, that he was born sometime before that. So instead of switching the year back 2-7 years, we switch the acronym. Continuing to use BC/AD is using an inaccurate system of dating, and I'll stick to one that isn't incorrect by definition.

I can accept that argument, and even understand your point. However, to me, it still becomes an arbitrary distinction since both the BC/AD and BCE/CE distinctions are centered around the same event. If one wishes to switch to BCE/CE for some personal sense of more exact accuracy, that's fine. But, that hardly makes the terminology more innately accurate. Given that "2014 CE" is the exact same as "2014 AD" (or "AD 2014") in terms of recording years makes the switch an arbitrary one. We haven't switched dates, starting points of the "now" period, or our method of recording the passage of time. All we have done is switch acronyms. To me, that is a pointless distinction.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I can accept that argument, and even understand your point. However, to me, it still becomes an arbitrary distinction since both the BC/AD and BCE/CE distinctions are centered around the same event. If one wishes to switch to BCE/CE for some personal sense of more exact accuracy, that's fine. But, that hardly makes the terminology more innately accurate. Given that "2014 CE" is the exact same as "2014 AD" (or "AD 2014") in terms of recording years makes the switch an arbitrary one. We haven't switched dates, starting points of the "now" period, or our method of recording the passage of time. All we have done is switch acronyms. To me, that is a pointless distinction.

:shrug: To each his own.

 

[Gaius46]

No one is trying to stamp out Christianities influence. That is a strawman.

I thought you said something about not wanting to tie the calendar to religious events? The Gregorian Calendar is a modification to the Julian calendar to fix the date of Easter in accordance with a decree from the First Council of Nicea.

Honestly I couldn't care less. I don't write either term all the often, I know what both mean and have no preference of one over the other. Just seems to be a pointless waste of time to me.

 

[Your Star]

I thought you said something about not wanting to tie the calendar to religious events? The Gregorian Calendar is a modification to the Julian calendar to fix the date of Easter in accordance with a decree from the First Council of Nicea.

Honestly I couldn't care less. I don't write either term all the often, I know what both mean and have no preference of one over the other. Just seems to be a pointless waste of time to me.

The Gregorian Calendar is still more accurate than the Julian Calendar, and it isn't really tied to religious events, it is tied to our travel around the Sun.

 

[Sababa]

What's more appropriate about it exactly?

A.D>= Anno Domini means the year of the Lord,
B.C= Before Christ


Many people do not recognize either Lord of the Jesus was the Christ.

It seems silly to use that name for time when 3/4 of the world doesn't believe.

Just another left over from the Romans.