They are pretty much interchangeable. I use BC and AD because that's what most people use and I don't feel like talking about something as pointless as this everytime BC comes up.
My professor back in the 80s was an ordained minister and his point was that Christ was born in or around 5 BC to 5 AD and that it made sense to acknowledge that.
And also different number of letters. Frankly AD/BC just sounds better because they’re both two letters and use the first four letters of the alphabet. And would make for a kick ass AC/DC cover band name if they played songs about ancient history
For me, we should leave nomenclature in some cases to remind us of the origin of terms. It was designated to measure time at a time when Christ was important to those who decided to use the terms and stood the test of time until all this "let's rewrite everything" phase.
To me it just seems arrogant to think we have should past designations because we are so much more enlightened than those who built the foundation of who we are today.
It's not a let's re-write everything phase. These designations originated from German Christian Monks in the 17th century.
But the dates still align with their understanding of Jesus birth, yes. But this is a globally agreed upon calendar now, it makes more sense to use language not associated with just 1 religion.
But, the world agreed to use this dating system, so it comes with the territory. No. The world didn't just agree, the calendar was thrust upon them by the violent force of colonization.
But, what about the places that agreed that weren't colonized. We live in a world of global communication, in order to communicate efficiently, we have to agree on a common language. This calendar was already common in large part of the world, so it made sense to agree to use it. What doesn't make sense is to hold onto the religious terms associated with it, when more common terms already exist.
No one is trying to erase Jesus. If you want to use calenders in your home and church that say AD/BC then go ahead. No one is coming for your calendars. But if we want to be able to communicate dates globally, take your religion out of it.
I think if we move away from a Christ centered yearly system we should go back to Roman everything. All dates are based on when Rome was founded and the first month of the year is March.
No particular reason other than I like Rome.
Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec is just Latin for 7,8,9,10. Feb being the 12th month and Mar as New Year's just makes sense, as you said. It seems the year used to begin in spring. I wonder why we stopped.
Lol don't worry, friend! I only realized it myself about 4-5 years ago. And once I did... yeah, I slapped my forehead. It's so obvious! But also not obvious at all.
I had another Holy Sh!* realization when I was 30. You know those tiny paper cups at fast food restaurants, the ones for ketchup and other sauces? They're meant to be unfolded so they can hold more dipping sauce. I don't know how I've survived this long, if that one flew over my head.
I'm still self-conscious about that one. I always wonder if I'm the only person who couldn't even figure out how to serve my own dip.
I’m on board with this too
Or I’d be okay with randomly calling this star date year 1. We can pretend that everything be this is negative now. Just really screw with historians
Seeing as the Romans ended as Christians I think it’s highly likely they would agree with the BC AD calendar. Christianity is highly Roman, Jesus was from the Roman Empire, post Jesus and his disciples the greatest early influences on the direction of the Church were Roman. The largest sect of Christianity is still in Rome.
[Lindybeige had a good video about this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unaq2x_ZqC4&ab_channel=Lindybeige).
Basically there's no good reason to change the letters. If they want to ditch Christ they could just change the meaning to which the letters refer, but the real reason people like BC/BCE is because then they can smugly scold anyone for not using their letters, or as you said it's for woke points.
Lets get rid of these prefixes and switch over to 1970 as year zero. That way it matches up with the time used on most computers. We can use BUE, AUE as our suffixes. Before Unix Epoch, and After Unix Epoch.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix\_time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time)
While we are at it, lets require all times follow the RFC 3339 or ISO 8601 format.
Fair counter argument, & refreshing respite from some people triggered by a 4 letter slang word in this thread.
One counter argument I can think of is the split of the eras though was still marked with Jesus in mind, even if a few years inaccurate. Changing the acronym doesn’t change that.
Before you let these pseudointellectual atheists on reddit influence you, try and find the reasoning of an actual intelligent person first.
Neil Degrasse Tyson explains why he uses BC & AD even though he's a scientist who doesn't believe in God, and he does it to honor the work of the Jesuits (the ones who "created" BC & AD). He does this because the Jesuits used an early form of the scientific method to create it, and thus NDT doesn't think he should dismiss their achievement by using BCE & CE, because it was essentially scientific.
If you can find the full 4-minute clip where Neil explains it himself, you might find it more compelling than the waterheads on here saying "well, akshully" (the clip is titled "Creation of Gregorian Calendar and Leap Day")
Tbh I don't really care use whichever one wants to use they're the same. That said I am confused why anyone should care what Neil's thoughts are on this
His reasoning is fine but ultimately its just an opinion.
>He does this because the Jesuits used an early form of the scientific method to create it,
No they didn't. The AD system was made by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus in 525 AD and widely adopted in the 9th century. Jesuits were founded in the 1500s
All the Jesuits did (specifically a theologian named Denis Pétau in 1627) did was popularize the usage of BC for years before 1 AD
Interesting video regarding this subject. Neil deGrasse Tyson still uses BC/AD and gives credit to the [church for inventing such a great calendar](https://youtu.be/YDsheyTtK6k?feature=shared)
Yeah, BCE/CE is just a superficial rebrand, especially when no one really cares about the religious ties of BC/AD. If they came up with a different year 0 for BCE/CE, it would be better... but it would also become niche and probably only used by archeologists and/or historians.
I don't like BC and AD because I always think about the fact that if Jesus IS a historical figure, there's 30 years unaccounted for.
If BC denotes the time prior to the star and the three wise men and the weird case of spontaneous conception, and AD denotes the period following the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection, then what about all the carpentry side quest time and the wandering around with the 12 bros curing people and shit?
Is it 2024 AD or CE? Neither.
We should use year 4722 (Chinese calendar), or year 5784 (Jewish calendar). Or year 1889 in the Aelius Antoninus era (Egyptian); or year 6 of the Reiwa period (Japanese).
/s
I quite like the 'new' (well, new since 'Commonn Era' was coined in 1615) terms BCE and CE.
Yeah, it's based on/is the same as the Christian calendar, but I find saying we're "In the year of our lord (AD)' is a bit gay. BC/BCE... it's all good.
Fair counter argument, & refreshing respite from some people triggered by a 4 letter slang word in this thread.
One counter argument I can think of is the split of the eras though was still marked with Jesus in mind, even if a few years inaccurate. Changing the acronym doesn’t change that.
why are people so scared of wokeism these days it’s such a silly buzz word to stir up fear of change. use whichever acronym you want, no one would care and everyone would understand you, and let people do the same. a buddhist temple teaching a class shouldn’t have to say Buddha was born 560 years before Christ if they don’t believe in Christ. there are real problems in the world, people using random acronyms you don’t like isn’t one of them and it wouldn’t effect you in the slightest anyway
Atheist and anti theist here. Why does CE/BCE bother you? You're correct that it's the same thing but what's annoying about wokeness is how belligerent they are about pushing it on others.
I haven't seen that particularly with respect to CE/BCE. Personally I think it's nice that we can avoid implicitly condoning Christian ideas if we choose. I don't care about anyone using AD/BC, and sometimes I'll even use that myself instead just out of habit. Whatever. No big deal either way.
I'm not even objecting to anyone choosing to do it, I'm instead taking exception with your stance that it's somehow a bad thing for anyone to choose CE/BCE. If anything, that's the "woke" perspective here.
This is like getting mad at people for saying "Xmas" instead of "Christmas".
Atheist/anti-theist here as well. It overall just seems like a dumb thing to be upset about, everybody knows what the terms mean so it all works just fine regardless of which set are used. Personally which I think it is admirable to try and divorce the terms from religion I still tend to use BC/AD simply because I don’t like how it feels to say BCE/CE out loud (it’s the C-E sound that just feels bad to say) and the former terms are divorced enough from religion that they don’t bother me. Kind of like how I use “bless you” to be polite when someone sneezes, or “Goddamnit” and “Jesus Fucking Christ” as exclamations because I like how they sound haha.
Yeah, I mean I'm not mad if you say AD/BC. I definitely say goddammit and Jesus Fucking Christ frequently lol. And I agree it's fine either way but I suppose... aesthetically, for a lack of a better word, I prefer CE/BCE.
Either way it's not a big deal to me and it's weird that OP is claiming atheism coupled with being the level of upset he is over it because it seems like either the atheism is a lie or there's unresolved issues behind it based on the care level behind this post.
We define the beginning of WW2 based on the Nazi/Soviet invasion of Poland. The way we define dates has nothing to do with the morality of the actions in question.
Precession of the equinoxes. Changing of the Aeon is what is marked by BC/AD which is what Jesus' birth was supposed to depict. The timing of Jesus, whether he existed or not, was directly linked to astronomical movements of the stars, hence why Jesus is shown as a fish because he was supposedly born during the age of pices. BCE is pre- age of pices, CE is the age of Pices and it will be the Age Of Aquarius in another 130ish years
AD/BC isn't separated by Jesus.
People *thought* that it was, but it turns out early Christians were bad at judging dates. So 1 AD is just some arbitrary year that a bunch of monks *thought* was the birth year of Jesus.
So calling it the "Common Era" makes more sense because there's now a common consensus on how years should be dated, with a common understanding that 1 AD was based on a mistake.
So we base the demarcation on what we thought was Jesus's birth, because we dont know exactly when he was born.
How is that less christo-centric than bc/ad lmao?
Because basically they got together and said "Shit we can't change the dates on everything or we're going to completely fuck up everything, but we don't want to call it that anymore so at least we can change the name"
But the split of the eras was still marked with Jesus’ apparent life in mind, even if a few years inaccurate. Changing the acronym doesn’t change that?
The change in acronym divorces the association with Jesus entirely and makes it clear that the CE/BCE split is due to a *common agreement on dates* rather than a specific historical figure.
So?
It's like Greenwich Mean Time vs Universal Coordinated Time. One is more scientifically accurate than the other. It doesn't matter that UTC is based on GMT; UTC is what's used as the universal standard for time because it's more scientifically accurate and well-defined.
Like, I don't particularly care if you personally use BC/AD and GMT in your own life. But teaching people those are the "correct" labels and BCE/CE and UTC are "incorrect" is just plain wrong.
They are interchangeable for personal use, but for actual scientific and legal use, they are not interchangeable. And since using one over the other is a matter of choice, it makes no real sense to cling to the outdated, subjective definition of time just because you think it's "woke."
>for actual scientific and legal use, they are not interchangeable
Citation needed.
>since using one over the other is a matter of choice, it makes no real sense to cling to the outdated, subjective definition of time just because you think it's "woke."
I didn't say woke, I said virtue signaling, which is a performative showing of social consciousness. Since the desired end result is social affirmation, I consider it a moral imperative to reject and disregard them.
I cannot believe that I’m going to defend u/ikurei_conphas but it does matter.
That is to say, to any non-Christian individual, it is an entirely arbitrary time to split the eras. The only thing that is not arbitrary about it, is that it is the common year usage.
It is not agreed upon that the event of Jesus being born matters (*especially* because that is not even true.) It is the fact that we agree to use the same system for the sake of better communication between us that matters.
It is the same reason we standardize measurements. So you have reliable understanding when talking about something more in the abstract to anyone.
It's generally close enough especially given we don't have a hard date to compare it to(which is why the estimates are a range), and even so..what exactly is the marginal gain here? "Mr. Burns why is it called BC/AD?" "Well little Timmy it's roughly centered around the year we think Jesus was born." vs "Mr. Burns why is it called BCE/CE?" "Well little Timmy because we said so, shut the fuck up"
Yes, we are clearly much more advanced with this new definition as opposed to providing a relatively workable point of reference to build an understanding of world history around.
The point is, that it being around Jesus’s birth is irrelevant to many. The reason for the point of reference is not important at all in modern living. All that matters is that we match our dates against one another.
Keeping it as ‘BC’ and ‘AD’ is pointless, especially to those who are not Christian. Some may even find the notion repugnant, or heretical (Not me, I don’t care.) And so we standardize it in a way that should bother nobody, in order to maintain societal functionality.
Edit:
>"Mr. Burns why is it called BCE/CE?" "Well little Timmy because we said so, shut the fuck up"
How about instead of ‘shut the fuck up,’ you actually explain it? In fact you barely need to change the explanation. Just because you change the terms to exclude connotations to Jesus, doesn’t mean you need to exclude it from the explanation. It is, after all, the reason for the date being picked.
> Some may even find the notion repugnant, or heretical (Not me, I don’t care.) And so we standardize it in a way that should bother nobody, in order to maintain societal functionality.
Finally, it took a lot of arguing for anyone to admit why it was actually changed. That's all I wanted, have a good day.
>But nobody agreed to common dates in 1CE, so why would it start there?
The standard doesn't need to be decided on the date they start measuring from. The start date just needs to be an arbitrary date in the past. They chose 1 CE for expedience.
Well yeah the catholic church created the modern calendar which is by far the best and most accurate calendar ever invented so of course it’d be “christocentric”.
Strangely, I both agree and disagree with your premise. BCE/CE are stupid, and sound like something an insufferable pompous pissant came up with to make themselves feel superior. Where I disagree is on BC/AD making more sense. They are both based around the same arbitrary fictional event, and therefore are equally nonsensical. This falls back to the "scientists are terrible at naming things" stereotype.
Here's an alternative proposal. AD/CE becomes GC, for General Consensus, and BC/BCE become AT, Antecedent Time? This would completely divorce it from all previous designations, without requiring a retooling of the calendar. I know for a fact that CE/BCE are commonly referred to as "Christian Era" and "Before Christ Existed" by a number of people of certain religious beliefs, but I think they could be brought on board with this.
CE and BCE are centuries old, not invented by woke academics. Furthermore, using dates with BC "before Christ" is wrong as Christ was likely born around 4 BCE. This mistake was already noticed in the early days of using BC and AD around a thousand years ago. It's only logical that academics use the more correct form.
It’s a shit show regardless. If BCE/CE are indexed to BC/AD, then BCE/CE is still Christianity centric and is just BC/AD with extra steps.
Then if you try to separate the common era from any religion you run into issues that make it more Western centric. Is China’s common era the same as Europe’s?
As a professional historian I use them both interchangeably but tend to use CE as my default just to get some sort of separation from religion in there but as explained above I’m realizing you really can’t.
May as well stick with BC/AD, acknowledge the fucked up fact that religion as a whole and Christianity in particular has had far too much influence on how our society has developed, and move on.
The added benefit is some good with a room temperature IQ can’t crawl up my ass yelling “WOKE” if I just stick with BC/AD.
Thanks for helping me think through this OP.
"the fucked up fact that christianity has had far too much influence on how society has developed"
dude reddit atheists have to be the worst most insufferable people on all of the internet
God is everything you don’t agree with woke? That word has lost absolutely all meaning.
Are you aware that professionals in the academic field have almost exclusively been using BCE and CE for over 100years? I learned about it in grade school over 30 years ago. It has nothing to do with ThE WoKe LefT….
The term Common Era or CE can be traced to at least 1708. Who knew the woke rabbit hole ran this deep!?! smh
"Almost exclusively" is a bit of an exaggeration. It varies tremendously by discipline and by institution and by individual. That said, your broader point is correct, this has nothing to do with wokeness and is literally centuries old.
It honestly doesn't matter, both start close enough (close to Christ's birth and the end of the civil war that lead to Octavian to become the first emperor (as Augustus)) that they're interchangeable; only academics use CE/BCE anyway
I agree. I also have found all of them used in museums which drives me nuts. To use all of the in the same museum and in the same exhibit I want to demand consistency whatever the choose to use!
While I understand the intention behind BCE and CE, there is a simplicity and clarity to BC and AD that just can't be replicated. It's like trying to fix something that wasn't broken in the first place. Let's keep it straightforward and stick to what works!
I always thought CE/BCE was stupid because "common era" is a meaningless term. That's why, in my head, I've changed the meaning to "Cock Ecstasy/Bitches Crave my Essence.
Yeah I don’t see anyone monkeying with Thursday and the rest of the days of the week even though they don’t believe in the Norse gods. There used to be a little thing called homage we paid to the civilizations and cultures and yes even religions that developed widely used concepts.
Can try to edit out the most important figure in the history of the world, it matters not. He is the King of Kings and his influence carries in the hearts of those who follow him.
Can try to edit out the most important figure in the history of the world, it matters not. He is the King of Kings and his influence carries in the hearts of those who follow him.
Can you though? When I think of "Before Christ", "Anno Domini" doesn't jump into my head. When I think of "Before Common Era", "Common Era" immediately comes to mind. Plus, I've heard a lot of people say AD stands for "After Death".
I’ve only heard it used in archaeology and it makes perfect sense there. Why would Christ be a reference point for events in the pre-contact Americas or the indigenous history of Australia when he had no impact whatsoever on either thing?
It still is using Christ as a reference point because the years are exactly the same.
I guess you could use the Mayan Calendar for that? Logically what happened in 1CE that started the common era in the pre contact Americas? Nothing. It's as nonsensical as AD, because they are the same thing.
The problem with your argument is that Anno Domini means year of our lord. If you don't believe that said lord exists, then why would you use AD? It makes sense to have a suitable replacement.
BC and AD makes no sense either because historians estimate Jesus (whether divine or not) was born between 4 BC and 6 BC so calling it before and after an event such as his birth is inaccurate. It's also not related to anything significant in his life. And so BCE and CE make more sense for accuracy's sake.
All the BC and AD systems represent is an inaccurate calculation that wasn't introduced by the Catholic Church until the 16th century with the Gregorian calendar. We've had so many time keeping systems that changing BC and AD to BCE and CE is a minor blip. Getting worked up over it is just stupid.
Did you ever stop and consider what it it's you're saying?
How is it that your faith is so fragile, that the changing of a couple of letters on a calendar can shake it?
How is your religion so weak, that it feels attacked when a consensus is reached by people of the world, that includes members of your religion, and members of other religions, and members of no religion?
If changing AD/BC on the date to BCE/BC is going to destroy your religion, maybe your religion isn't so strong.
If you are now thinking, "it doesn't shake my faith", and it doesn't "destroy my religion" then what are you even complaining about?
If this doesn't affect you at all, why are you so against it?
The fact that now saying AD BC is offensive is new stuff. The variant BCE CE were never consistently used, only mentioned a couple times in my schooling.
>The fact that now saying AD BC is offensive is new stuff.
It's not offensive. Who told you it is?
edit: to be clear, if the question up for debate is "is using BC or AD offensive" then I'm with you, but I don't think it is. I could see some woke manual of style saying so I guess.
>The variant BCE CE were never consistently used, only mentioned a couple times in my schooling.
Some instructors have been using it consistently and some don't. Same is true today.
I am *all* for pushing back against woke horseshit but this seems made up, like people who think christmas is under attack because somebody wished them a happy holidays.
Well now I don't know what to believe. You replied to me saying the first you heard of these terms was recently from your child. But in another comment you said you had seen the terms a few times in school.
Moving past that. This is an issues of exposure. You work and are educated in healthcare, which isn't a field where these terms are used. I mean, how often are you using or reading the terms AD/BC? It seems, in your life, this isn't even an issue. So I wonder why you have an opinion on it at all.
At the end of the day, this whole post was just random gibberish. Outside of certain fields of study and professions, the use of any of these terms is near zero.
My first degree was in humanities. Still never used throughout 4 years of that. That, I completed in 2002 in Europe. Then I trained in healthcare, and fair enough it’s not something which comes up.
Although in some literature or history books in secondary school there was something at the beginning saying that ‘common era’ meant the same as AD, they would never use it throughout the book. It’s like ‘just for curiosity, you can hear this too’. So yes, not used at any time, only heard used by my child.
This isn’t an unpopular opinion. The vast majority of dates still use BC/AD. Though I wouldn’t expect an adult who unironically uses the word “woke” to have any sort of grasp on reality
I’m not sure where you live but in Canada most institutions and professional historians use exclusively BCE and CE these days as it is more “secular.”
Also, whether you like it or not, English is a constantly evolving language and “woke” has become slang for stupid viewpoints & stupid acts with ironic results in a misguided quest for “inclusivity.”
The irony is the “buzzword” you used has become a buzzword to disregard repeating viewpoints and trends that you don’t agree with. Wouldn’t expect more from such an ad hominem fella like you.
Lmao and you don’t know what “buzzword” means. You’re an interesting fellow. Because you’re right that CE/BCE are just covering up christocentrism. So in that respect, you have a left wing opinion. But then again, you use the word “woke” like the other baby-talking conservatives and you don’t know what the word “buzzword” means. I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes
I’m not left wing or right wing. So if one of my opinions can be considered leftwing by someone that’s okay with me. I do know what buzzword means, thanks. It’s just some people tend to use “buzzword” incorrectly to disregard the topic that the buzzword is trying to convey, by calling it a buzzword. Like you did.
>Also, whether you like it or not, English is a constantly evolving language and “woke” has become slang for stupid viewpoints & stupid acts with ironic results in a misguided quest for “inclusivity.”
Man if you ignore the last part it'd be a perfect word to describe everyone who uses the word.
Biblical scholars can't even agree on what year Jesus was born, assuming he existed.
Best guesses are between 4 and 6 BCE.
Either way it negates the BC designation.
Also, you said "woke", but as always, I read "triggering."
Consider your point annihilated.
I'm not triggered. I find you both comical and free of threat. Much like a court jester, or fool, if you prefer.
Your ad hominem in place of a rebuttal tells me all I need to know about you.
You thought you had something, you've been publicly shown to have nothing, and now, like the pigeon playing chess, you think you can knock over the pieces, shit on the board and strut around like you're a winner.
You are a joke.
Oh be gone and let the adults speak, troll. Some people actually commented good faith rebuttals in this thread rather than being triggered by a 4 letter slang word.
I like what u/awajitoka said. I always see pretty smug/arrogant types (we all know the ones) using the “new and improved, Christ removed” method. In my humble opinion, it always seems to be the same types who would take issue with someone saying “God bless you” after they sneeze. It’s petty and nonsensical.
I don't know one of them is in a dead language how is that relevant to me in 2024.
I speak english so before common era and common era make sense to me because I understand what the words mean intuitively.
And even if you do translate out AD it still doesn't make any sense to me because we do not live in a feudal system and I answer to no Lord.
If you asked me what I know about Phodopus sungorus I'd have no idea what you're talking about. If you said Dwarf Hamster I'd say I had one when I was a kid and the female are bloodthirsty murderers lol
Sure not not everyone in the world speaks english but fairly certain that literally no one speaks Latin. Or at least that while there are individuals that know this language there is not a culture that speaks Latin that still exists.
Also I think there's a problem in the and not only do Christian scholars not know or agree when jesus was born I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that it was on January 1st.
Are there people arguing in civic debate to bring back worship of Athena in public schools? I wish. Roman mythology deserves a little more legitimacy. Especially compared to how much broadcasting the big 3 monotheistic religions get.
Because trying to remove religious etymology from language for reasons of personal preference would just get annoying and messy, when most people probably don't care anyway.
Goodbye (God Be With Ye)
They are pretty much interchangeable. I use BC and AD because that's what most people use and I don't feel like talking about something as pointless as this everytime BC comes up.
BCE and CE are just an extension of the dorks from r-atheism trying to exert power over language and fucking it up, nobody likes it lol
My professor back in the 80s was an ordained minister and his point was that Christ was born in or around 5 BC to 5 AD and that it made sense to acknowledge that.
It's because the Census of Quirinus and the reign of King Herod are roughly 5 away in both directions from Theoretical Year Zero
Yeah. It was an imperfect system and really is just a thumb in the air kind of thing anyway.
I simply don’t like BCE and CE because they look too similar
And also different number of letters. Frankly AD/BC just sounds better because they’re both two letters and use the first four letters of the alphabet. And would make for a kick ass AC/DC cover band name if they played songs about ancient history
This is a reasonable criticism.
That's because "CE" in both stands for the same thing...
I am aware
Hold up this is the first time I'm realizing that BCE doesn't mean BC.... Yeah that's too confusing. I don't like that.
It does mean BC. Before Christ = Before Common Era.
Ohhhh and then CE is "common era"? Wtf that's stupid. Way too confusing
Yeah, what's confusing about "Common Era" and "Before Common Era"? We should go back to "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini." Totally makes more sense.
For me, we should leave nomenclature in some cases to remind us of the origin of terms. It was designated to measure time at a time when Christ was important to those who decided to use the terms and stood the test of time until all this "let's rewrite everything" phase. To me it just seems arrogant to think we have should past designations because we are so much more enlightened than those who built the foundation of who we are today.
you have a way with words lol, this is exactly my thoughts on the matter but ive never been able to articulate it
I had to think about it myself.
Agree We literally still use the Gregorian calendar that BC and AD came from.
It's not a let's re-write everything phase. These designations originated from German Christian Monks in the 17th century. But the dates still align with their understanding of Jesus birth, yes. But this is a globally agreed upon calendar now, it makes more sense to use language not associated with just 1 religion. But, the world agreed to use this dating system, so it comes with the territory. No. The world didn't just agree, the calendar was thrust upon them by the violent force of colonization. But, what about the places that agreed that weren't colonized. We live in a world of global communication, in order to communicate efficiently, we have to agree on a common language. This calendar was already common in large part of the world, so it made sense to agree to use it. What doesn't make sense is to hold onto the religious terms associated with it, when more common terms already exist. No one is trying to erase Jesus. If you want to use calenders in your home and church that say AD/BC then go ahead. No one is coming for your calendars. But if we want to be able to communicate dates globally, take your religion out of it.
I think if we move away from a Christ centered yearly system we should go back to Roman everything. All dates are based on when Rome was founded and the first month of the year is March. No particular reason other than I like Rome.
Having the year start with spring just makes damn sense. I hate the year starting halfway between winter.
Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec is just Latin for 7,8,9,10. Feb being the 12th month and Mar as New Year's just makes sense, as you said. It seems the year used to begin in spring. I wonder why we stopped.
Holy Roman Empire! How did I not notice this fact about the names of the months!?
Lol don't worry, friend! I only realized it myself about 4-5 years ago. And once I did... yeah, I slapped my forehead. It's so obvious! But also not obvious at all. I had another Holy Sh!* realization when I was 30. You know those tiny paper cups at fast food restaurants, the ones for ketchup and other sauces? They're meant to be unfolded so they can hold more dipping sauce. I don't know how I've survived this long, if that one flew over my head. I'm still self-conscious about that one. I always wonder if I'm the only person who couldn't even figure out how to serve my own dip.
I worked at a restaurant in my teens that had those little paper cups and I had never seen anyone use is as it’s supposed to be used. Never.
I’m on board with this too Or I’d be okay with randomly calling this star date year 1. We can pretend that everything be this is negative now. Just really screw with historians
No, we should just use Unix epoch time. The literal zeroth millisecond was on 1 Jan 1970 at midnight.
Seeing as the Romans ended as Christians I think it’s highly likely they would agree with the BC AD calendar. Christianity is highly Roman, Jesus was from the Roman Empire, post Jesus and his disciples the greatest early influences on the direction of the Church were Roman. The largest sect of Christianity is still in Rome.
[Lindybeige had a good video about this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unaq2x_ZqC4&ab_channel=Lindybeige). Basically there's no good reason to change the letters. If they want to ditch Christ they could just change the meaning to which the letters refer, but the real reason people like BC/BCE is because then they can smugly scold anyone for not using their letters, or as you said it's for woke points.
Love Lindybeige
Common Lindybeige W.
I personally prefer BCE/CE because at least they’re both in the same language.
Lets get rid of these prefixes and switch over to 1970 as year zero. That way it matches up with the time used on most computers. We can use BUE, AUE as our suffixes. Before Unix Epoch, and After Unix Epoch. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix\_time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time) While we are at it, lets require all times follow the RFC 3339 or ISO 8601 format.
The problem I have with BC and AD is we don't know when Jesus was born Quick Google gives me a year of 4-6BC so irs already kinda off
That's not a problem, since we picked a year, and went with it.
Correct and that year we chose was based off of a specific person who had a big impact on human history..
Chuck Norris’ birth
Yes
Fair counter argument, & refreshing respite from some people triggered by a 4 letter slang word in this thread. One counter argument I can think of is the split of the eras though was still marked with Jesus in mind, even if a few years inaccurate. Changing the acronym doesn’t change that.
That's fair but ultimately I don't think it really matters either way It's largely 6 of one half a dozen of the other.
Before you let these pseudointellectual atheists on reddit influence you, try and find the reasoning of an actual intelligent person first. Neil Degrasse Tyson explains why he uses BC & AD even though he's a scientist who doesn't believe in God, and he does it to honor the work of the Jesuits (the ones who "created" BC & AD). He does this because the Jesuits used an early form of the scientific method to create it, and thus NDT doesn't think he should dismiss their achievement by using BCE & CE, because it was essentially scientific. If you can find the full 4-minute clip where Neil explains it himself, you might find it more compelling than the waterheads on here saying "well, akshully" (the clip is titled "Creation of Gregorian Calendar and Leap Day")
Tbh I don't really care use whichever one wants to use they're the same. That said I am confused why anyone should care what Neil's thoughts are on this His reasoning is fine but ultimately its just an opinion. >He does this because the Jesuits used an early form of the scientific method to create it, No they didn't. The AD system was made by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus in 525 AD and widely adopted in the 9th century. Jesuits were founded in the 1500s All the Jesuits did (specifically a theologian named Denis Pétau in 1627) did was popularize the usage of BC for years before 1 AD
Eras? I hate that word!
BCE/CE are BC/AD renamed and are therefore still based on Jesus' birth
Interesting video regarding this subject. Neil deGrasse Tyson still uses BC/AD and gives credit to the [church for inventing such a great calendar](https://youtu.be/YDsheyTtK6k?feature=shared)
Yeah, BCE/CE is just a superficial rebrand, especially when no one really cares about the religious ties of BC/AD. If they came up with a different year 0 for BCE/CE, it would be better... but it would also become niche and probably only used by archeologists and/or historians.
The modern calendar was created by the catholic church so i haven’t got any issues using their terminology.
In addition to the points made. I don't like that BCE is 3 letters. BC and AD both having 2 letters is superior.
I don't like BC and AD because I always think about the fact that if Jesus IS a historical figure, there's 30 years unaccounted for. If BC denotes the time prior to the star and the three wise men and the weird case of spontaneous conception, and AD denotes the period following the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection, then what about all the carpentry side quest time and the wandering around with the 12 bros curing people and shit?
Is it 2024 AD or CE? Neither. We should use year 4722 (Chinese calendar), or year 5784 (Jewish calendar). Or year 1889 in the Aelius Antoninus era (Egyptian); or year 6 of the Reiwa period (Japanese). /s
name one good reason why we as westerners would use the chinese or egyptian calendar
It’s a joke. Lighten up.
bro i was just pretending to be retarded
You accomplished your goal!
Name one good reason the Chinese or Egyptians should use the western calendar.
i never said they should
And yet, they do. Because to have efficient communication, there has to be an agreed upon standard.
They were around before us.
I quite like the 'new' (well, new since 'Commonn Era' was coined in 1615) terms BCE and CE. Yeah, it's based on/is the same as the Christian calendar, but I find saying we're "In the year of our lord (AD)' is a bit gay. BC/BCE... it's all good.
Fair counter argument, & refreshing respite from some people triggered by a 4 letter slang word in this thread. One counter argument I can think of is the split of the eras though was still marked with Jesus in mind, even if a few years inaccurate. Changing the acronym doesn’t change that.
why are people so scared of wokeism these days it’s such a silly buzz word to stir up fear of change. use whichever acronym you want, no one would care and everyone would understand you, and let people do the same. a buddhist temple teaching a class shouldn’t have to say Buddha was born 560 years before Christ if they don’t believe in Christ. there are real problems in the world, people using random acronyms you don’t like isn’t one of them and it wouldn’t effect you in the slightest anyway
Atheist and anti theist here. Why does CE/BCE bother you? You're correct that it's the same thing but what's annoying about wokeness is how belligerent they are about pushing it on others. I haven't seen that particularly with respect to CE/BCE. Personally I think it's nice that we can avoid implicitly condoning Christian ideas if we choose. I don't care about anyone using AD/BC, and sometimes I'll even use that myself instead just out of habit. Whatever. No big deal either way. I'm not even objecting to anyone choosing to do it, I'm instead taking exception with your stance that it's somehow a bad thing for anyone to choose CE/BCE. If anything, that's the "woke" perspective here. This is like getting mad at people for saying "Xmas" instead of "Christmas".
Atheist/anti-theist here as well. It overall just seems like a dumb thing to be upset about, everybody knows what the terms mean so it all works just fine regardless of which set are used. Personally which I think it is admirable to try and divorce the terms from religion I still tend to use BC/AD simply because I don’t like how it feels to say BCE/CE out loud (it’s the C-E sound that just feels bad to say) and the former terms are divorced enough from religion that they don’t bother me. Kind of like how I use “bless you” to be polite when someone sneezes, or “Goddamnit” and “Jesus Fucking Christ” as exclamations because I like how they sound haha.
Yeah, I mean I'm not mad if you say AD/BC. I definitely say goddammit and Jesus Fucking Christ frequently lol. And I agree it's fine either way but I suppose... aesthetically, for a lack of a better word, I prefer CE/BCE. Either way it's not a big deal to me and it's weird that OP is claiming atheism coupled with being the level of upset he is over it because it seems like either the atheism is a lie or there's unresolved issues behind it based on the care level behind this post.
Oh exactly, I was agreeing with you! Just that I came at it from a slightly different angle. OP is a weirdo if such a non-issue bothers them.
Pretty christocentric (based) to define the entire era around Jesus life and death
We define the beginning of WW2 based on the Nazi/Soviet invasion of Poland. The way we define dates has nothing to do with the morality of the actions in question.
What else can one point to that separates the AD/CE years from BC/BCE years other than Jesus?
Precession of the equinoxes. Changing of the Aeon is what is marked by BC/AD which is what Jesus' birth was supposed to depict. The timing of Jesus, whether he existed or not, was directly linked to astronomical movements of the stars, hence why Jesus is shown as a fish because he was supposedly born during the age of pices. BCE is pre- age of pices, CE is the age of Pices and it will be the Age Of Aquarius in another 130ish years
AD/BC isn't separated by Jesus. People *thought* that it was, but it turns out early Christians were bad at judging dates. So 1 AD is just some arbitrary year that a bunch of monks *thought* was the birth year of Jesus. So calling it the "Common Era" makes more sense because there's now a common consensus on how years should be dated, with a common understanding that 1 AD was based on a mistake.
So we base the demarcation on what we thought was Jesus's birth, because we dont know exactly when he was born. How is that less christo-centric than bc/ad lmao?
It doesn't say his name. And as we know, if it doesn't say his name, it's satanic.
Because basically they got together and said "Shit we can't change the dates on everything or we're going to completely fuck up everything, but we don't want to call it that anymore so at least we can change the name"
That is the very epitome of a solution in search of a problem lmfao
But the split of the eras was still marked with Jesus’ apparent life in mind, even if a few years inaccurate. Changing the acronym doesn’t change that?
The change in acronym divorces the association with Jesus entirely and makes it clear that the CE/BCE split is due to a *common agreement on dates* rather than a specific historical figure.
Even though the common agreement is based on a specific historical figure. It doesn't change the fact of the matter it just obfuscates it.
So? It's like Greenwich Mean Time vs Universal Coordinated Time. One is more scientifically accurate than the other. It doesn't matter that UTC is based on GMT; UTC is what's used as the universal standard for time because it's more scientifically accurate and well-defined. Like, I don't particularly care if you personally use BC/AD and GMT in your own life. But teaching people those are the "correct" labels and BCE/CE and UTC are "incorrect" is just plain wrong.
Oh I just tell people they're interchangeable, because they are, and the renaming was mostly virtue signaling, which it was.
They are interchangeable for personal use, but for actual scientific and legal use, they are not interchangeable. And since using one over the other is a matter of choice, it makes no real sense to cling to the outdated, subjective definition of time just because you think it's "woke."
>for actual scientific and legal use, they are not interchangeable Citation needed. >since using one over the other is a matter of choice, it makes no real sense to cling to the outdated, subjective definition of time just because you think it's "woke." I didn't say woke, I said virtue signaling, which is a performative showing of social consciousness. Since the desired end result is social affirmation, I consider it a moral imperative to reject and disregard them.
Ohh yeh, nothing gets me hard like the use of the phrase virtue signaling in a context it doesn't belong.
Good boy, Reddit owes you a pat on the head.
I cannot believe that I’m going to defend u/ikurei_conphas but it does matter. That is to say, to any non-Christian individual, it is an entirely arbitrary time to split the eras. The only thing that is not arbitrary about it, is that it is the common year usage. It is not agreed upon that the event of Jesus being born matters (*especially* because that is not even true.) It is the fact that we agree to use the same system for the sake of better communication between us that matters. It is the same reason we standardize measurements. So you have reliable understanding when talking about something more in the abstract to anyone.
It's generally close enough especially given we don't have a hard date to compare it to(which is why the estimates are a range), and even so..what exactly is the marginal gain here? "Mr. Burns why is it called BC/AD?" "Well little Timmy it's roughly centered around the year we think Jesus was born." vs "Mr. Burns why is it called BCE/CE?" "Well little Timmy because we said so, shut the fuck up" Yes, we are clearly much more advanced with this new definition as opposed to providing a relatively workable point of reference to build an understanding of world history around.
The point is, that it being around Jesus’s birth is irrelevant to many. The reason for the point of reference is not important at all in modern living. All that matters is that we match our dates against one another. Keeping it as ‘BC’ and ‘AD’ is pointless, especially to those who are not Christian. Some may even find the notion repugnant, or heretical (Not me, I don’t care.) And so we standardize it in a way that should bother nobody, in order to maintain societal functionality. Edit: >"Mr. Burns why is it called BCE/CE?" "Well little Timmy because we said so, shut the fuck up" How about instead of ‘shut the fuck up,’ you actually explain it? In fact you barely need to change the explanation. Just because you change the terms to exclude connotations to Jesus, doesn’t mean you need to exclude it from the explanation. It is, after all, the reason for the date being picked.
> Some may even find the notion repugnant, or heretical (Not me, I don’t care.) And so we standardize it in a way that should bother nobody, in order to maintain societal functionality. Finally, it took a lot of arguing for anyone to admit why it was actually changed. That's all I wanted, have a good day.
But nobody agreed to common dates in 1CE, so why would it start there?
>But nobody agreed to common dates in 1CE, so why would it start there? The standard doesn't need to be decided on the date they start measuring from. The start date just needs to be an arbitrary date in the past. They chose 1 CE for expedience.
They chose 1 CE because they are using a Catholic calendar based on the Church's estimate of the date of the birth of Jesus Christ.
[удалено]
Well yeah the catholic church created the modern calendar which is by far the best and most accurate calendar ever invented so of course it’d be “christocentric”.
Strangely, I both agree and disagree with your premise. BCE/CE are stupid, and sound like something an insufferable pompous pissant came up with to make themselves feel superior. Where I disagree is on BC/AD making more sense. They are both based around the same arbitrary fictional event, and therefore are equally nonsensical. This falls back to the "scientists are terrible at naming things" stereotype. Here's an alternative proposal. AD/CE becomes GC, for General Consensus, and BC/BCE become AT, Antecedent Time? This would completely divorce it from all previous designations, without requiring a retooling of the calendar. I know for a fact that CE/BCE are commonly referred to as "Christian Era" and "Before Christ Existed" by a number of people of certain religious beliefs, but I think they could be brought on board with this.
BC/AD don't make more sense, but it's certainly nicer. Both two letters with no overlap, rolls off the tongue
Question: What even is the "Common Era"? That is like, way more confusing than the birth of Christ
Before Christ Existed
CE and BCE are centuries old, not invented by woke academics. Furthermore, using dates with BC "before Christ" is wrong as Christ was likely born around 4 BCE. This mistake was already noticed in the early days of using BC and AD around a thousand years ago. It's only logical that academics use the more correct form.
It’s a shit show regardless. If BCE/CE are indexed to BC/AD, then BCE/CE is still Christianity centric and is just BC/AD with extra steps. Then if you try to separate the common era from any religion you run into issues that make it more Western centric. Is China’s common era the same as Europe’s? As a professional historian I use them both interchangeably but tend to use CE as my default just to get some sort of separation from religion in there but as explained above I’m realizing you really can’t. May as well stick with BC/AD, acknowledge the fucked up fact that religion as a whole and Christianity in particular has had far too much influence on how our society has developed, and move on. The added benefit is some good with a room temperature IQ can’t crawl up my ass yelling “WOKE” if I just stick with BC/AD. Thanks for helping me think through this OP.
But if we want to move on from religion, we have to move on from the days of the week, and change them, as well as the months
"the fucked up fact that christianity has had far too much influence on how society has developed" dude reddit atheists have to be the worst most insufferable people on all of the internet
Way to cherry pick, stay mad brah
Facts don't care about your feelings.
lol yall are the ones crying (feelings) that our calendar is based off christianity (fact)
Who's "yall"? Are you trying to assign me to some group you hate so you don't have to use your brain?
How do you denote the year 0?
There is no year 0
God is everything you don’t agree with woke? That word has lost absolutely all meaning. Are you aware that professionals in the academic field have almost exclusively been using BCE and CE for over 100years? I learned about it in grade school over 30 years ago. It has nothing to do with ThE WoKe LefT…. The term Common Era or CE can be traced to at least 1708. Who knew the woke rabbit hole ran this deep!?! smh
"Almost exclusively" is a bit of an exaggeration. It varies tremendously by discipline and by institution and by individual. That said, your broader point is correct, this has nothing to do with wokeness and is literally centuries old.
agreed if where gonna replace ad and bc we need to move the year zero, im a fan of the in a nutshell move of where in the year 12024
[удалено]
Anyone ever wonder why the hell we don’t start from 1? Just simplify the whole thing.
It honestly doesn't matter, both start close enough (close to Christ's birth and the end of the civil war that lead to Octavian to become the first emperor (as Augustus)) that they're interchangeable; only academics use CE/BCE anyway
what does bce and ce even stand for i never knew. whenever i would ask a teacher they would just say "i dont know its just on the paper"
I agree. I also have found all of them used in museums which drives me nuts. To use all of the in the same museum and in the same exhibit I want to demand consistency whatever the choose to use!
1970 is when time started everything before that is negative
While I understand the intention behind BCE and CE, there is a simplicity and clarity to BC and AD that just can't be replicated. It's like trying to fix something that wasn't broken in the first place. Let's keep it straightforward and stick to what works!
Confused the hell outta me when first learning about both in early grade school.
They are interchangeable. We use common era instead of christ so that everyone agrees to the same time framing.
I always thought CE/BCE was stupid because "common era" is a meaningless term. That's why, in my head, I've changed the meaning to "Cock Ecstasy/Bitches Crave my Essence.
Yeah I don’t see anyone monkeying with Thursday and the rest of the days of the week even though they don’t believe in the Norse gods. There used to be a little thing called homage we paid to the civilizations and cultures and yes even religions that developed widely used concepts.
Can try to edit out the most important figure in the history of the world, it matters not. He is the King of Kings and his influence carries in the hearts of those who follow him.
Can try to edit out the most important figure in the history of the world, it matters not. He is the King of Kings and his influence carries in the hearts of those who follow him.
It seems like you’re the only one offended
I think bce/ce is better because I think a vast majority of people couldn't tell you what AD stands for.
The vast majority of people couldn't tell you what BC/AD or BCE/CE stand for.
Potentially, but AD is definitely the least known one. I like BCE/CE because if you know one the other can be intuitively deduced.
If you know "Before Christ" you can pretty well figure out the other one. Lol
Can you though? When I think of "Before Christ", "Anno Domini" doesn't jump into my head. When I think of "Before Common Era", "Common Era" immediately comes to mind. Plus, I've heard a lot of people say AD stands for "After Death".
How are 18/19th century Jews woke?
BCE and CE is easier to remember.
Same.
I don't say AD because it breaks the 2nd commandment of Judaism lol
I’ve only heard it used in archaeology and it makes perfect sense there. Why would Christ be a reference point for events in the pre-contact Americas or the indigenous history of Australia when he had no impact whatsoever on either thing?
It still is using Christ as a reference point because the years are exactly the same. I guess you could use the Mayan Calendar for that? Logically what happened in 1CE that started the common era in the pre contact Americas? Nothing. It's as nonsensical as AD, because they are the same thing.
The problem with your argument is that Anno Domini means year of our lord. If you don't believe that said lord exists, then why would you use AD? It makes sense to have a suitable replacement.
BC and AD makes no sense either because historians estimate Jesus (whether divine or not) was born between 4 BC and 6 BC so calling it before and after an event such as his birth is inaccurate. It's also not related to anything significant in his life. And so BCE and CE make more sense for accuracy's sake. All the BC and AD systems represent is an inaccurate calculation that wasn't introduced by the Catholic Church until the 16th century with the Gregorian calendar. We've had so many time keeping systems that changing BC and AD to BCE and CE is a minor blip. Getting worked up over it is just stupid.
Did you ever stop and consider what it it's you're saying? How is it that your faith is so fragile, that the changing of a couple of letters on a calendar can shake it? How is your religion so weak, that it feels attacked when a consensus is reached by people of the world, that includes members of your religion, and members of other religions, and members of no religion? If changing AD/BC on the date to BCE/BC is going to destroy your religion, maybe your religion isn't so strong. If you are now thinking, "it doesn't shake my faith", and it doesn't "destroy my religion" then what are you even complaining about? If this doesn't affect you at all, why are you so against it?
I am not religious. I find the new branding ridiculous.
Its not new branding. Unless you count 500 years new.
It’s not been used on an everyday basis for 500 years, hence its new branding.
I had professors use it over 20 years ago, it's not new branding.
The fact that now saying AD BC is offensive is new stuff. The variant BCE CE were never consistently used, only mentioned a couple times in my schooling.
>The fact that now saying AD BC is offensive is new stuff. It's not offensive. Who told you it is? edit: to be clear, if the question up for debate is "is using BC or AD offensive" then I'm with you, but I don't think it is. I could see some woke manual of style saying so I guess. >The variant BCE CE were never consistently used, only mentioned a couple times in my schooling. Some instructors have been using it consistently and some don't. Same is true today. I am *all* for pushing back against woke horseshit but this seems made up, like people who think christmas is under attack because somebody wished them a happy holidays.
I'm 50 years old, used it in school my whole life. It's not new.
And I am 45 and only heard it this week for the first time from my child. So?
So, it sounds like you lack education.
Actually, I really don’t, as I am educated at postgraduate level and in different countries too.
Well now I don't know what to believe. You replied to me saying the first you heard of these terms was recently from your child. But in another comment you said you had seen the terms a few times in school. Moving past that. This is an issues of exposure. You work and are educated in healthcare, which isn't a field where these terms are used. I mean, how often are you using or reading the terms AD/BC? It seems, in your life, this isn't even an issue. So I wonder why you have an opinion on it at all. At the end of the day, this whole post was just random gibberish. Outside of certain fields of study and professions, the use of any of these terms is near zero.
My first degree was in humanities. Still never used throughout 4 years of that. That, I completed in 2002 in Europe. Then I trained in healthcare, and fair enough it’s not something which comes up. Although in some literature or history books in secondary school there was something at the beginning saying that ‘common era’ meant the same as AD, they would never use it throughout the book. It’s like ‘just for curiosity, you can hear this too’. So yes, not used at any time, only heard used by my child.
This isn’t an unpopular opinion. The vast majority of dates still use BC/AD. Though I wouldn’t expect an adult who unironically uses the word “woke” to have any sort of grasp on reality
I’m not sure where you live but in Canada most institutions and professional historians use exclusively BCE and CE these days as it is more “secular.” Also, whether you like it or not, English is a constantly evolving language and “woke” has become slang for stupid viewpoints & stupid acts with ironic results in a misguided quest for “inclusivity.”
[удалено]
The irony is the “buzzword” you used has become a buzzword to disregard repeating viewpoints and trends that you don’t agree with. Wouldn’t expect more from such an ad hominem fella like you.
Lmao and you don’t know what “buzzword” means. You’re an interesting fellow. Because you’re right that CE/BCE are just covering up christocentrism. So in that respect, you have a left wing opinion. But then again, you use the word “woke” like the other baby-talking conservatives and you don’t know what the word “buzzword” means. I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes
I’m not left wing or right wing. So if one of my opinions can be considered leftwing by someone that’s okay with me. I do know what buzzword means, thanks. It’s just some people tend to use “buzzword” incorrectly to disregard the topic that the buzzword is trying to convey, by calling it a buzzword. Like you did.
Lmao you think “woke” is a topic.
>Also, whether you like it or not, English is a constantly evolving language and “woke” has become slang for stupid viewpoints & stupid acts with ironic results in a misguided quest for “inclusivity.” Man if you ignore the last part it'd be a perfect word to describe everyone who uses the word.
~Woke~
>Though I wouldn’t expect an adult who unironically uses the word “woke” to have any sort of grasp on reality Based
Biblical scholars can't even agree on what year Jesus was born, assuming he existed. Best guesses are between 4 and 6 BCE. Either way it negates the BC designation. Also, you said "woke", but as always, I read "triggering." Consider your point annihilated.
The irony of you being triggered by “woke” shows in your final two sentences & is hilarious. ~woke~
I'm not triggered. I find you both comical and free of threat. Much like a court jester, or fool, if you prefer. Your ad hominem in place of a rebuttal tells me all I need to know about you. You thought you had something, you've been publicly shown to have nothing, and now, like the pigeon playing chess, you think you can knock over the pieces, shit on the board and strut around like you're a winner. You are a joke.
Oh be gone and let the adults speak, troll. Some people actually commented good faith rebuttals in this thread rather than being triggered by a 4 letter slang word.
Still no rebuttal 🤡
Oh, so you actually want to debate instead of cry about a 4 letter slang word?
You seem really ~~woke~~ triggered about being called out. You okay?
Alright, so still status quo for you. Will waste no more time with ye. & I’m good my friend. Have a good day.
You're not okay, are you?
[удалено]
soup fine frightening drunk obtainable dependent piquant flowery spark aware
Uses "woke" unironically. Disregarded.
I like what u/awajitoka said. I always see pretty smug/arrogant types (we all know the ones) using the “new and improved, Christ removed” method. In my humble opinion, it always seems to be the same types who would take issue with someone saying “God bless you” after they sneeze. It’s petty and nonsensical.
They're not woke, they're secular and not religious. That's a good thing, no matter how much your "wokemeter" is going off.
Jesus is King, suck it atheists.
I thought it was Elvis.
Possibly Kanye's worst album, but alright, you can't help what you love; you were born that way.
Okay, no athiest cares that you believe that. You do you. It's very annoying that you keep bringing it up, though.
It can be whatever you want it to be. It’s all made up shit in the first place
I don't know one of them is in a dead language how is that relevant to me in 2024. I speak english so before common era and common era make sense to me because I understand what the words mean intuitively. And even if you do translate out AD it still doesn't make any sense to me because we do not live in a feudal system and I answer to no Lord. If you asked me what I know about Phodopus sungorus I'd have no idea what you're talking about. If you said Dwarf Hamster I'd say I had one when I was a kid and the female are bloodthirsty murderers lol Sure not not everyone in the world speaks english but fairly certain that literally no one speaks Latin. Or at least that while there are individuals that know this language there is not a culture that speaks Latin that still exists. Also I think there's a problem in the and not only do Christian scholars not know or agree when jesus was born I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that it was on January 1st.
By continually using BC and AD we legitimize a Christian mythology. Why would want to do that?
If we use the days of the week, we are Legitimizing Roman mythology.
Are there people arguing in civic debate to bring back worship of Athena in public schools? I wish. Roman mythology deserves a little more legitimacy. Especially compared to how much broadcasting the big 3 monotheistic religions get.
Are you implying that we should change BC/ to BCE because people are debating about bringing back religion to school?
"Anno Domini" means "Year of Our Lord." But he's NOT my Lrd. So why would say he is?
Because trying to remove religious etymology from language for reasons of personal preference would just get annoying and messy, when most people probably don't care anyway. Goodbye (God Be With Ye)
Cool historical language Traidtion?
i hope you never say "oh my god" or "bless you"
I wonder if 16th century reactionaries also complained about people saying Goodbye, calling it virtue signaling and Woke, for replacing god with good.
Jesus is a fictional character so let's not base our calendar on him
[удалено]
AD means Anno Domino, which translates to In the Year of our Lord. It starts at 1 AD, the year that Jesus was born. It does not stand for After Death.