Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

Lately, there has been a lot of push in the international circle to replace the dating system which uses BC (before Christ) and AD (Year of the Lord) with one that instead calls them BCE (before common era) and CE (common era). I find it a silly concept, as the system is still based off of a old guy's dating of Jesus's birth. Does removing 'Christ' make it better, even if there is no real change?
Discuss.

[Mephansteras]

Well, it does make more sense from a scientific standpoint since it's more accurate. If I remember correctly the current calendar isn't accurate as far as when Jesus was born, so it makes the nomenclature a bit silly if that's what it purports to be dated on.

[Gunner-Chan]

I really don't get the point, but BCE and CE sorta have a better ring to them. So I support it.

[Sergius]

I think that people that are not Christians have no reason to call whatever age the "christ year" or the "thy Lord and savior day". So it's sensible. Imagine the uproar if Christians had to say "it's the Buddah year 2009" or "we're in year 2009 according to Allah/Cthulhu/Zeus/SuperPaganMan".

Generally I've found that when people say things like "well we've been doing it for ages so there's no reason to change it" are Christians pretending to just "not care/don't see a reason for anyone to care" but in fact want everyone to be forced to name Jesus every time they can.

[Willfor]

Well, it does make more sense from a scientific standpoint since it's more accurate. If I remember correctly the current calendar isn't accurate as far as when Jesus was born, so it makes the nomenclature a bit silly if that's what it purports to be dated on.

I think the more scientific standpoint would be to define the reason why they are picking the exact time the switch between BCE and CE happens. Generally calenders are based on an event rather than picking an arbitrary date. The person who named it BC and AD in the first place was at least making an honest mistake.

If someone can tell me something that happened in 0 CE that has a scientific justification, that would be completely different. Otherwise, I think they should find a new change date instead of being lazy.

[Strife26]

Well, I wouln't want to be the one to redate all of Human history. If we pick another date, call it Declaration of Independance for conviencence.

Columbus sailed the ocean blue, in the year negative something or another?

[Fenrir]

I'm not a Christian and I prefer BC and AD. I hate political correctness. People need to stop being so damn sensitive.

[Sergius]

Well, it does make more sense from a scientific standpoint since it's more accurate. If I remember correctly the current calendar isn't accurate as far as when Jesus was born, so it makes the nomenclature a bit silly if that's what it purports to be dated on.

I think the more scientific standpoint would be to define the reason why they are picking the exact time the switch between BCE and CE happens. Generally calenders are based on an event rather than picking an arbitrary date. The person who named it BC and AD in the first place was at least making an honest mistake.

If someone can tell me something that happened in 0 CE that has a scientific justification, that would be completely different. Otherwise, I think they should find a new change date instead of being lazy.

Calling 0 CE is an even more honest attempt to say it's "year 0 just because".

Also, switching the 0 date to some other event would be a huge bother and we'd have to find a really REALLY interesting and groundbreaking date. Maybe the first nuclear bomb explosion? Today could be the year 68 NA (Nuclear Age). Now to find a way to stop people from saying/spelling it "Nucular".

[Mephansteras]

Well, it does make more sense from a scientific standpoint since it's more accurate. If I remember correctly the current calendar isn't accurate as far as when Jesus was born, so it makes the nomenclature a bit silly if that's what it purports to be dated on.

I think the more scientific standpoint would be to define the reason why they are picking the exact time the switch between BCE and CE happens. Generally calenders are based on an event rather than picking an arbitrary date. The person who named it BC and AD in the first place was at least making an honest mistake.

If someone can tell me something that happened in 0 CE that has a scientific justification, that would be completely different. Otherwise, I think they should find a new change date instead of being lazy.

At this point it's more or less economics that pushes us to keep it. It'd be way to expensive and time consuming to redo EVERYTHING that has dates in it. Just trying to change the internal code of all the computer programs out there would be a nightmare. Think about how much money was spent preparing for y2k.

It's not so much lazy as it is smart. It's literally not worth the effort to change it at this point.

[Duke 2.0]

I'm not a Christian and I prefer BC and AD. I hate political correctness. People need to stop being so damn sensitive.

Same here.

 I was going to post something else here, but I really didn't have anything to improve the original point.

[Jude]

It's kind of dumb to try and make it PC or non-religious or whatever when you're still basing the entire dating system off of Christianity

[Duke 2.0]

 Alright Scientific Community, here is my deal:

 We will switch to your new system and get rid of all our cultural influences on Science when you stop naming scientific effects, materials, laws and such on the people who named them.

[Willfor]

Well, it does make more sense from a scientific standpoint since it's more accurate. If I remember correctly the current calendar isn't accurate as far as when Jesus was born, so it makes the nomenclature a bit silly if that's what it purports to be dated on.

I think the more scientific standpoint would be to define the reason why they are picking the exact time the switch between BCE and CE happens. Generally calenders are based on an event rather than picking an arbitrary date. The person who named it BC and AD in the first place was at least making an honest mistake.

If someone can tell me something that happened in 0 CE that has a scientific justification, that would be completely different. Otherwise, I think they should find a new change date instead of being lazy.

At this point it's more or less economics that pushes us to keep it. It'd be way to expensive and time consuming to redo EVERYTHING that has dates in it. Just trying to change the internal code of all the computer programs out there would be a nightmare. Think about how much money was spent preparing for y2k.

It's not so much lazy as it is smart. It's literally not worth the effort to change it at this point.

So you don't really care if it's scientific, or accurate now? :')

[Duke 2.0]

Well, it does make more sense from a scientific standpoint since it's more accurate. If I remember correctly the current calendar isn't accurate as far as when Jesus was born, so it makes the nomenclature a bit silly if that's what it purports to be dated on.

I think the more scientific standpoint would be to define the reason why they are picking the exact time the switch between BCE and CE happens. Generally calenders are based on an event rather than picking an arbitrary date. The person who named it BC and AD in the first place was at least making an honest mistake.

If someone can tell me something that happened in 0 CE that has a scientific justification, that would be completely different. Otherwise, I think they should find a new change date instead of being lazy.

At this point it's more or less economics that pushes us to keep it. It'd be way to expensive and time consuming to redo EVERYTHING that has dates in it. Just trying to change the internal code of all the computer programs out there would be a nightmare. Think about how much money was spent preparing for y2k.

It's not so much lazy as it is smart. It's literally not worth the effort to change it at this point.

So you don't really care if it's scientific, or accurate now? :')

Accurate to what?

[Sergius]

Is there an actual quote that it is the Scientific Community ("TM") pushing the change? All I saw on the OP was that the "international community" is pushing it. International community: people around the world. A lot of the answers really seem like lashing out against those "damn scientists" for no reason. Blame it all on the scientific heathens?