BC/AD versus BCE/CE

[Lozcwngz]

Eh. I grew up with BC/AD, but I've slowly adapted to BCE/CE for the sake of the younger generation being able to understand. But a side effect is that I'm beginning to prefer the BCE/CE format, so I guess I'll continue using that, because not everyone is religious or believes Jesus Christ was born in the year 0 (seems the general consensus is that he was born slightly before, according to historians interested in his lifetime).

[Cekoviu]

Eh. I grew up with BC/AD, but I've slowly adapted to BCE/CE for the sake of the younger generation being able to understand. But a side effect is that I'm beginning to prefer the BCE/CE format, so I guess I'll continue using that, because not everyone is religious or believes Jesus Christ was born in the year 0 (seems the general consensus is that he was born slightly before, according to historians interested in his lifetime).

I thought it was a few years afterwards, like 10003 or so.

[The South Falls]

It really doesn't matter. We can center our calendar around the invention of tea, for all I care. I believe we should just find something, and stick with it.

[Forsher]

I would argue that, if anything, it makes things more Christian-centric. We still use the same timescale, we still start counting from Jesus' birthday. Only now, instead of calling it what it is, we call it the "common era", although there is nothing common about it.

For maximum irony... preach, brother!

What an arrogant idea, that "we christians" need to make "our" calendar easier to swallow for non-christians by obscuring its origins.

Although I reject this bit. It's a European calendar. It's wholly de-Christianised. The problem is that it's European.

Is this really something that matters? It's one extra letter, it's more accurate (Jesus likely wasn't born in AD 1, after all, whereas we certainly do measure a "Common Era" from that date), it makes a little more sense when you're discussing places whose history has very little if anything to do with Christianity, and its more open to being adopted as a standard.

It actually matters a lot.

Basically the only time you ever need to use a calendar where specifying BC or AD is in historical contexts... and in these contexts it's really important to not imply a common conception of time which is non-existent. Importing irrelevant details from other times or places is literally the biggest sin you can commit in historical analysis.

I use BCE/CE when writing in English, but it's not really in an attempt to make the dates less christian-centric. Though I wouldn't have anything against that, but as long as we retain the same basic, underlying system, that's more of a fig leaf. Which is a least something, mind you, but not exactly gamechanging. No, the real i.e. main reason why I prefer to use BCE/CE is because I really don't like anchoring all dates to an a.)uncorrobborated event that b.) even according to christian scholars didn't actually take place at that time, i.e. the birth of Christ. As a historian, I don't really like the thought of having such a problematic starting point as the base of the system. So I prefer the idea that it now is what it is and the common consensus is that there's a more or less arbitrary turning point there, because that's what we're used to.

B.P. is where it's really at though!

You are using the same date.

Even worse you're calling it a common dating scheme.

I personally use BC/CE. Because it's easier, and because Christ is not my lord.

Before Christian Era. Look it up.

[Olthar]

We could just wait until the singularity happens. Our robot overlords will force us to use a new calender based on it, anyways.

[The Alma Mater]

Although I reject this bit. It's a European calendar. It's wholly de-Christianised. The problem is that it's European.

So the presence of Norse gods in the days of the week and Roman ones in the months is also a problem ?

[The South Falls]

We could just wait until the singularity happens. Our robot overlords will force us to use a new calender based on it, anyways.

The black hole will eat us up, then we won't have time!

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Are you both intentionally trying to be obtuse?

Because as of right now a manned mission to Pluto is monetarily and most likely physically impossible. We don’t know if humans can stay in a gravityless environment for over two years, let alone 10.

It’s the same with AI there are cost prohibitive and physical barriers to things. We can’t go faster than light, it’s just not physically possible. That not some magical force field but a physical limition.

I think he's referring to the notion that Pluto's atmosphere is in part methane based, and would explode if a spacecraft tried to land. Its not true, but its likely to what he was referring.

Pluto's atmosphere is partly methane based, but:
1. There would need to be oxygen there for the methane to burn. Huygens successfully landed on Titan, which has a high-methane atmosphere.
2. Pluto's atmosphere is so thin it's as if it's not there.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Do you think there is a magical forcefield around Pluto?

It also was impossible to land on the moon
Never doubt human stubbornness

Are you both intentionally trying to be obtuse?

Because as of right now a manned mission to Pluto is monetarily and most likely physically impossible. We don’t know if humans can stay in a gravityless environment for over two years, let alone 10.

It’s the same with AI there are cost prohibitive and physical barriers to things. We can’t go faster than light, it’s just not physically possible. That not some magical force field but a physical limition.

1. These problems are not insurmountable. Reusable launch vehicles can massively reduce the price of launching the vehicle, new engine technologies (such as VASIMR and possibly fusion drives) could allow the spaceship to travel much faster (reducing the travel time a lot), and centripetal gravity could solve the weightlessness problem.

2. There is no physical barrier for a computer reaching human-like levels of intelligence. Human brains are essentially meat computers, and human brains are possible because they exist. Find me a physical limitation from a reasonable source proving that human-level AI is not possible.

[Forsher]

Although I reject this bit. It's a European calendar. It's wholly de-Christianised. The problem is that it's European.

So the presence of Norse gods in the days of the week and Roman ones in the months is also a problem ?

The problem is that you have a culturally specific calendar. If you're in that culture, there is no problem.

So, no.

The problem exists when you try to apply a calendar in different cultural contexts and it is inherent when you proclaim a specific cultural conception of time to be a common era.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I use them both, BC/AD and BCE/CE.

[MERIZoC]

Has it?

Never noticed.

Only time I've ever come across it was way back in secondary school so I presumed the campaign to make this a thing had died out.

have you never read wikipedia?

[Mike the Progressive]

It's no big deal, either way. I always do get a kick out of evangelicals who freak out over the usage. I let them know Jewish scholars were some of the earlier users of it.

[Hurdergaryp]

It's no big deal, either way. I always do get a kick out of evangelicals who freak out over the usage. I let them know Jewish scholars were some of the earlier users of it.

Does that little infodrop freak them out even more?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Only time I've ever come across it was way back in secondary school so I presumed the campaign to make this a thing had died out.

have you never read wikipedia?

I read some political and history stuff on there on occasion and where there's potential for confusion it has been using BC/AD on the articles I read.

If you mean have I ever looked up the specific page on the campaign to change it that I'd forgotten existed or am I the sort to rifle through the background talk pages, then no. While I don't really have better things to do (I post on NSG), I've never had a particular reason to look up these things.

[Hurdergaryp]

Actually the Hebrew calendar uses the Latin words AM or Anno Mundi

All the cool kids use Latin.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

[Xmara]

I grew up with BC/AD and I'm a Christian, so that's what I use. But I don't really care if people use BCE/CE. To each their own.

[MERIZoC]

have you never read wikipedia?

I read some political and history stuff on there on occasion and where there's potential for confusion it has been using BC/AD on the articles I read.

If you mean have I ever looked up the specific page on the campaign to change it that I'd forgotten existed or am I the sort to rifle through the background talk pages, then no. While I don't really have better things to do (I post on NSG), I've never had a particular reason to look up these things.

I could have sworn it was all BCE/CE. Thought thats why they founded Conservapedia

[Demetland]

BCE/CE is itself Christian in origin because the 'common era' is still defined by the traditional date of the Incarnation. BCE/CE can happily stand for 'Christian era' instead and in fact this is the older usage (we have aerae christianae in 1584 and vulgaris aerae in 1615 so the common/vulgar/Christian era are simply different names for the same thing

Nevertheless, it is obvious that Jews, Muslims, and adherents of other religions cannot really speak of something happening in a certain year anno Domini, so the common era notation is the only way to go for them unless they use their own systems.

[Hurdergaryp]

I read some political and history stuff on there on occasion and where there's potential for confusion it has been using BC/AD on the articles I read.

If you mean have I ever looked up the specific page on the campaign to change it that I'd forgotten existed or am I the sort to rifle through the background talk pages, then no. While I don't really have better things to do (I post on NSG), I've never had a particular reason to look up these things.

I could have sworn it was all BCE/CE. Thought thats why they founded Conservapedia

Said website is online since 2006 CE.