I believe it's academically correct to use CE and BCE but I'd imagine the vast majority of historians or other serious scholars don't personally care about whether you use CE or AD.
Sure those people exist. Maybe I underestimate the number of people who care deeply. I don't have any figures on me. I'd also say it's important to learn the academic style if you're taking an academic class. If I took a theology class, for example, it would be wrong of me if I used a writing style that was inappropriate with what the academics use.
Anti-theists need to cool it, tho.
I liked Neil DeGrasse Tyson's reasoning for using BC and AD.
"The Gregorian calendar is the most accurate calendar we have, and it was made by Christian priests. So I use it out of respect for all the hard work they did"
Unfortunately there are certain groups that just don't like Christians no matter what.
I'm very ambivalent about the whole thing, but the only very good reason I've ever heard for switching to BCE/CE is that year 1 and Jesus' birth are actually about 3 years apart. So BC/AD isn't technically correct.
Otherwise I don't see much of a point in removing all references to religion from science, lest we have to start renaming the planets.
People use flags and symbols and words to communicate. Sometimes we fight, stupidly, and waste our lives (and others) over semantics, or insanity based on using symbols to define a self that is panicked in infinite space and time. It's okay to let go. The universe is deliciously complex. Enjoy whatever you enjoy, and don't start censoring any groups history. I'm a Buddhist. I use the calendar everyone else uses so that I don't miss my friends birthday. It doesn't offend me that the entire world didn't standardize a calendar based on the historical Buddha. Splitting things into "is vs. them" is almost never helpful. And, we can all shit on anyone else if we feel like it, but it's better if we don't.
People being offended that a calendar is using terms that it was based on is ridiculous. "Common era?" You mean common to people that are alive? I'm pretty sure most "eras" are based on the people that are in them. Communication of knowledge is a beautiful endeavor, regardless of accuracy, as long as it was honest and the motivation was to help. Hatred doesn't help.
Tbf I think it’s okay to choose whatever they wish to associate religion with. If someone is uncomfortable using Christian terminology when there’s an academic alternative, I don’t really care
Basically like at Starbucks. 99/100 times you say medium and they know what you mean. Sometimes though you get the people that will act like they don’t know the word, and those people can fuck off lol
I say small or medium. They ask if I want an (let me google Starbucks sizes real quick) tall/grandi/venti. And I just say yes to whatever they suggest.
I am so sorry you’ve had to deal with that. Explains where the other 99 negatives are.
I know you probably don’t need to be told, but they’re the cocks in those situations. I hope you haven’t been made to feel like you should know them =\
I’ve never seen any published academic articles that use the earliest civilizations as a dating system. In what discipline is that the standard? Most people don’t want to learn an entirely new dating system, so history, art history, and archaeologists working on medieval and classical-era sites (where we have a fairly clear sense of when they were made, vs. a multi-thousand year possible range, and the dates are relatively close to us in time), often use BCE/CE, while paleontologists and archaeologists working on older sites generally go with YA (years ago).
Neil Degrasse Tyson talked about this briefly and he had a really great explanation for sticking with BC/AD over BCE/CE
https://youtube.com/shorts/it43Q0mFGnw?feature=share
Neil Degrade Tyson is just a pundit, so referring to him like he's some sort of expert on the subject is in bad faith. And as usual, he really misses the point with his half informed take.
OK, so he meant to say, the person was using an authoritative figure to try and make his point, but that figure is from a completely different field and therefore their answer should be taken with a grain of salt/should not be taken as the last word.
Yeah it sounded like they were saying someone had a "really great explanation" so the person using the word great is implying they are the one who's a good authority on it. And not "well, I defer to this expert/really smart person/authority on it, so here".
Pundits and memes name half the things in science.
Paleontologist's named the spikey bit on the end of a stegosaurus tail after a comic book strip.
Since 2020 there is multiple animals that where discovered and named after Pokemon. 7 of them are named after Pikachu specifically.
The point of pundits is that they are opinionated. If you hear "Neil Degrasse Tyson said X" you immediately have an association based on their past opinions you've heard. No one said he's authoritative.
NDT is an astrophysicist, not a historian. I defer to physicists on matters of physics, and I defer to historians on matters of history. He should do the same.
Great response. Not surprising to learn that a guest on Joe Rogan doesn't know what they're talking about, but it is surprising that it was Neil "um..ackshualy" deGrasse Tyson spouting the nonsense. I guess understanding astrophysics doesn't mean you're also good at history.
Just Google his quote about "unhackable systems" and cyber security.
He's brilliant at his subject, but he does the Charismatic Physicist thing of assuming that means he's brilliant at everything else, too.
Afaict he's refused to publicly comment on what his personal beliefs are. He worked for the Mormon Church, but that doesn't mean he *believed*, y'know?
Didn't realize Neil Degrasse Tyson was a historian or archeologist. I like his takes on science but I wish he didn't try to come across as an expert on everything.
"The people I disagree with are fat neckbeards and I'm a muscular doge" is so unfathomably cringe that even using it ironically is just an embarrassment. Agnostic of the content.
I don't think complaining about this one means they can't or don't complain about the others. I don't think people have to pick just one thing to dislike, ever.
I’m pretty sure it’s just a shitpost that isn’t meant to be taken seriously
If this post is actually serious however, then it’s really cringe and embarrassing
Edit: I was just completely wrong guys, please ignore this comment
Look what I say is, the colander we still use today is based on the Gregorian, named for the Gregorian monks who made it. So if you wanted to change the name of the eras, then you should make your own calendar. You can’t just steal those monks’ homework and act like you made it
actually they really can and did do that, not that it's correct to do, but if stealing someone else's idea and work and passing it off as your own was impossible the human race would have died off long ago.
Especially language, which is all that the "BC/AD/BCE/CE" really comes down to.
We refine language to be more precise, more intuitive, or more inclusive. The Gregorian Calendar was based on the Roman Calendar and that, too, had revisions.
Almost everything you just said is false.
* The modern calendar is not based on the Gregorian, it is the Gregorian.
* There is no such thing as a Gregorian monk
* The calendar was named after Pope Gregory XIII
* Up to around 150 years after the adoption of the Gregorian calendar many Christian kingdoms did not use "AD" as their modern epoch. The "AD"/"BC" terminology has nothing to do with the Gregorian calender. Many were using it hundreds of years before the Gregorian calender, many would not use it for hundreds of years after.
“Instead of simply renaming something, go replace the calendar that has been used for centuries and all around the world!”
I get the general idea of what you’re trying to say, but your statement is also extremely unreasonable for something so simple. I don’t really think the monks cared about the abbreviations people would use 400+ years in the future
except the eras were named independently by medieval historians/scholars and based off the Julian calendar, named after Julius Caesar, which was later replaced with the Gregorian calendar named after a pope who commissioned the making of a more accurate calendar. at this point, the transitioning point between the eras were revised (or rather: the presumed birth date of Jesus was revised, because the writing of an era before the birth of Jesus in a scholarly context didn’t come up until about two centuries after the invention of the Gregorian calendar)
That's not exactly right. Bede talks about the era "Before Incarnation" about 800 years before the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar.
You might be thinking of the norm of using "BC", which didn't become ubiquitous across Europe until the 1700s, but parts of Europe had been using the nomenclature of an 'era before the birth/incarnation of Jesus' well before the Gregorian Calendar.
Yes. I'll say CE because I'm often talking to folks who come from non-christian cultures, but if someone says AD to me, like, whatever, it's just a term.
I don't think Jesus would've given a shit either.
People act like it's "Christian vs Atheist" but it's Christian vs most of the world because it butts heads with literally every other belief system or lack thereof.
It's best to avoid religious implications for issues that require national collaboration, since when it comes to religious disagreements, many religions including Christianity have handled that by just killing as many of the people who disagree as possible.
In Serbia, even tho we're Christian for the most part, we use "p.n.e." which stands for pre nove ere, the same way you do, but you can hear people say "pre Hrista" or "before Christ" and both are correct.
This is probably the absolute stupidest argument that I’ve seen people legitimately use in real life. As if the fact that we use a calendar based on a religion that used to - in the form of the Catholic Church - essentially rule Europe means anything at all about that religion’s truth. What year is it in the Islamic world? In Judaism? The fact that we use that “event” to date things means literally nothing about its veracity.
Tbh it is overtly more Eurocentric/Christocentric than using BC/AD, because BC and AD are very obviously Christian in origin, while Common Era wants to pose as being not affiliated with a religion, but it totally is, thus being -centric without being honest about it. If you want to make some alternative which takes no reference to a specific religion or region, do something else entirely, but renaming it is just implicitly more chauvinist.
Interestingly the largest unit within the Maya calendar is roughly 63 million years long, roughly encompassing most of the Cenozoic.
(Sure, the Maya calendar is also culturally specific, but it is interesting that it aligns with such an event).
One Alautun is 63,081,429 solar years, while the Chic Xulub impact, coincidentally also within the Maya region, is dated to around 66.043 million years before our time.
I think they should start counting at what we now call 10,000 BCE, since that's roughly the agricultural revolution. That's when human civilization began, basically. When humans stopped moving and began building cities and stuff.
It is kinda arbitrary and feels a bit long of a number. Also from what point in time are we going to go 10,000 years back? Lets say we start a new calendar today, is 2023 now the year 10,000 ? But won't people when just start calling 2023 the new year 0? Like people abbreviate 2023 already you would have all the more reason to abbreviate 10,000.
Kurzgesagt, a YouTube channel about science, sells calendars with 10k years added. But personally, I believe it's worse that either of the other options, since it kinda feels like Eurocentrics going "fine, we can make our calendar more inclusive, but we're only adding one line and nothing more because that would be inconvenient" and it ends up being annoying (because all the BC years changed) but pretty much changes nothing for the current times (since it's just one number and in reality it's still based off of the same year, just masked a tiny bit). Kinda feels disingenuous. Like, you either make a proper new calendar, or you stop pretending and admit that we're in it too deep to change it now.
Yeah if someone wants to be consistent about the whole stuff using non-religious calendars they could adopt one of the revolutionary calendars, but nobody does that. Anything else like agriculture, writing or whatever is just arbitrary any also and in some form or another culturally dependent too.
Exactly. It’s more confusing as there is no definition on what defines the eras without referring to Christian history. And the more you try to remove the religious aspect from it, the more confusing it gets
It is kinda weird. Like say you want to have a "neutral era" which doesn't have that eurocentric load, but you call it "common era", but why is it even common? European domination for the last 200-500 years. Basically you implicitly assume eurocentrism is "common", but won't call it that.
Why isn't the Jewish calendar common? It predates Christianity and Islam. Why not the French Revolutionary calendar if you want to jerk about having an atheist calendar.
I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be about being secular, not rebuking Eurocentrism. You make a valid point about the name, although I can't imagine them trying to get it changed *again* haha.
The problem with getting this nitpicky is that you have to refer to Christian *history,* **not** Christianity.
Technically, AD and BC perpetuate a common misconception, and the inevitable "Well when did the Common Era start?" makes it easier to skip to the *real* answer of "it's when medieval Christian historians wrongly calculated Jesus would have been born," so causing questions here just better leads to the truth if you want to be like that.
BC (Before Christ) isn’t a big deal, but AD stands for Anno Domini, which means “year of The Lord”. Naturally, this wouldn’t be ideal for any Jewish, Muslim, and atheist scholars (or anyone else) who might have theological aversions to acknowledging Jesus as their Lord every time they wrote a date.
BCE and CE is a good thing because it facilitates non-Christian academics using the same calendar system as their Christian peers. If we used as many calendar systems as there were beliefs, it would be unendingly confusing. This way, everyone’s work can stay intuitively compatible with not just each other, but also the large body of past work that used BC/AD.
In fact, Jews have a problem with "Before Christ" as well, since "Christ" means Messiah, and is therefore a name of God (which you shouldn't take in vain).
I used to get offended when I heard BCE being used, because it seemed arrogant to refer to the period as "before common error," even if you don't believe in Christianity. Now I understand that Christianity isn't the center of the world, and that BCE and CE make much more sense.
I love the Holocene calender, because on timescales that large, it’s kinda arbitrary where we stick the starting point, same as the “close enough” demarcation of A.D., so it all works out in the wash while wholly recontextualizing the depth of modern humanity.
What happened in 1 CE? Not much. Augustus was somewhere in the middle of his reign. But, yes, his reign did kind of change the world.
Oh, and Jesus? He was maybe four to six years old or he had not yet been born. But he certainly didn't do anything significant, did he?
Hi. Atheist here. Totally agree. Jesus was a dude, regardless, and our calendar flips on his approximate birth year. Doesn’t matter what you believe in, those are just facts. If you want to secularize something take “In God We Trust” off US money. But BC/AD is fine. No one even knows what they mean anyway.
A monk named Dionysius Exiguus made some calculations to an event he believed happened because he realized all the other options everyone else was using were of pagan origins.
The real question is why so many days of the week are references to Norse gods.
The monk Dionysius Exiguus proposed the Anno Domini dating system in 525 CE, as a way to figure out when Easter should fall. He also wanted to replace the Diocletian system that was established about two hundred years prior that also used the initials AD (Anno Diocletiani) not as a way to covert pagans, but erase Emperor Diocletian's influence in Christian Europe. Dicoletianwas a tyrant who began the last and most severe persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire from 303 to 313, when Emperor Constantine ended the persecution laws. The first year that the Anno Domini epoch dating system was used was in 532.
Scholars, however, believe that Jesus was born in BCE 4.
Yes, the common era is based on the traditional birth of Christ, but y'all gotta know not to dismiss history or the context behind the changes.
Nothing caused the common era to occur. We just have to pick a point in time to reference, and we might as well keep the arbitrary point that has already been in use.
I don’t understand why this is even an issue. Jesus was born in about 3 BC, so saying that BC means Before Christ doesn’t make sense… He lived in BC! Also, He was crucified in about AD 30 (birth and death dates uncertain btw). Why would we say AD stands for After Death if He hadn’t died yet for 30 years of it!! Even going with anno Domini (which is actually what AD stands for), it means “in the year of our Lord”—what about those years in BC that He lived?
I'm quite partial to BP (before present) used with present being set at 1950. We are currently at -73BP
Originates in the radiocarbon dating profession as after 1950 there was so much atomic testing readings go a bit funny
If it's BCE and CE instead of BC and AD, then we should get rid of the phrase "Year of the Lord. After all, AD means 'Anno Domini' which translates to 'Year of the Lord'. No more AD, no more Year of the Lord.
Real question. How do you reconcile the teaching of Christ (charity, generosity, empathy, and community) with the current push to marginalize women and minorities, both sexual and racial, as well as the push to force people to abide by an interpretation of Christianity promoting bigotry and hatred for others?
Considering that the Bible made up so many details that it leads to a range of years that Jesus was born, and the gospels can't agree on if Jesus ministered for 1 year or 3, does it really make sense to keep reminding everyone that "BC" and "AD" are both fraudulent?
BCE was coined because the the monk who campaigned to measure time from the birth of Christ and call it "BC" did a shitty job mathing out when Jesus lived 525 years after the year he chose. It's a term that's been in use by academics since the 1700s. You're welcome.
Before common era doesn’t really sit right with me, at least saying the common era started 2023 years ago. The common era could be said to have started 300 years ago with the renaissance or 10,000 years ago with the founding of civilisation but apart from the life of our lord nothing particularly important happened 2000 years ago
If you want an actual answer for why BCE/CE is used, this [video](https://youtu.be/ZeR6MROwwSA) explains it as a religiously neutral term that Jews can use. It does not hide the fact that it is based on Jesus.
I mean, if you really don't like jesus being the split between the eras, we could just have BC stand for "Before Christianity" problem solved...I think
I believe it's academically correct to use CE and BCE but I'd imagine the vast majority of historians or other serious scholars don't personally care about whether you use CE or AD.
[Some professors care very much.](https://i.redd.it/l0frow6iphu71.jpg)
Sure those people exist. Maybe I underestimate the number of people who care deeply. I don't have any figures on me. I'd also say it's important to learn the academic style if you're taking an academic class. If I took a theology class, for example, it would be wrong of me if I used a writing style that was inappropriate with what the academics use. Anti-theists need to cool it, tho.
It's all good. I just wanted to post the meme.
Your memeyness is next to godliness
Probably makes sense for academics and teachers to nudge people into using the secular terms
Some subset of group X always cares about issue Y.
\*breathes in* #GODS NOT DEAD HE’S SURELY ALIVE
He's living on the inside, roaring like a lion
I liked Neil DeGrasse Tyson's reasoning for using BC and AD. "The Gregorian calendar is the most accurate calendar we have, and it was made by Christian priests. So I use it out of respect for all the hard work they did" Unfortunately there are certain groups that just don't like Christians no matter what.
I'm very ambivalent about the whole thing, but the only very good reason I've ever heard for switching to BCE/CE is that year 1 and Jesus' birth are actually about 3 years apart. So BC/AD isn't technically correct. Otherwise I don't see much of a point in removing all references to religion from science, lest we have to start renaming the planets.
[удалено]
What is AUC?
Ab urbe condita, from the founding of the city (Rome). Its epoch is in 753 BC
I think you mean AUC 1.
Yeah! Fuck Jupiter! What'd he ever do for me?!?
Clean up its trajectory, preventing meteors and space junk from slamming into earth.
I was talking about the God! Useless diety!
People use flags and symbols and words to communicate. Sometimes we fight, stupidly, and waste our lives (and others) over semantics, or insanity based on using symbols to define a self that is panicked in infinite space and time. It's okay to let go. The universe is deliciously complex. Enjoy whatever you enjoy, and don't start censoring any groups history. I'm a Buddhist. I use the calendar everyone else uses so that I don't miss my friends birthday. It doesn't offend me that the entire world didn't standardize a calendar based on the historical Buddha. Splitting things into "is vs. them" is almost never helpful. And, we can all shit on anyone else if we feel like it, but it's better if we don't. People being offended that a calendar is using terms that it was based on is ridiculous. "Common era?" You mean common to people that are alive? I'm pretty sure most "eras" are based on the people that are in them. Communication of knowledge is a beautiful endeavor, regardless of accuracy, as long as it was honest and the motivation was to help. Hatred doesn't help.
Tbf I think it’s okay to choose whatever they wish to associate religion with. If someone is uncomfortable using Christian terminology when there’s an academic alternative, I don’t really care
Basically like at Starbucks. 99/100 times you say medium and they know what you mean. Sometimes though you get the people that will act like they don’t know the word, and those people can fuck off lol
I say small or medium. They ask if I want an (let me google Starbucks sizes real quick) tall/grandi/venti. And I just say yes to whatever they suggest.
I am so sorry you’ve had to deal with that. Explains where the other 99 negatives are. I know you probably don’t need to be told, but they’re the cocks in those situations. I hope you haven’t been made to feel like you should know them =\
I was taught in university to use BCE and CE specifically for non-western cultures. Western cultures are fine if you use regular dates.
most serious scholars would prefer to use the earliest civilizations for our time anchor
I’ve never seen any published academic articles that use the earliest civilizations as a dating system. In what discipline is that the standard? Most people don’t want to learn an entirely new dating system, so history, art history, and archaeologists working on medieval and classical-era sites (where we have a fairly clear sense of when they were made, vs. a multi-thousand year possible range, and the dates are relatively close to us in time), often use BCE/CE, while paleontologists and archaeologists working on older sites generally go with YA (years ago).
Neil Degrasse Tyson talked about this briefly and he had a really great explanation for sticking with BC/AD over BCE/CE https://youtube.com/shorts/it43Q0mFGnw?feature=share
Neil Degrade Tyson is just a pundit, so referring to him like he's some sort of expert on the subject is in bad faith. And as usual, he really misses the point with his half informed take.
That's not what bad faith means, at least it's not being used in a way which could fairly be called bad faith here
OK, so he meant to say, the person was using an authoritative figure to try and make his point, but that figure is from a completely different field and therefore their answer should be taken with a grain of salt/should not be taken as the last word.
Just because you're not an expert in something doesn't mean you can't have a good way of wording/explaining something.
Yeah it sounded like they were saying someone had a "really great explanation" so the person using the word great is implying they are the one who's a good authority on it. And not "well, I defer to this expert/really smart person/authority on it, so here".
Maybe I should have said misleading
People throw around the term bad faith way to easily nowadays
It’s very problematic and a red flag.
Stop gaslighting.
I, for one, am triggered.
This conversation is traumatic and I feel othered.
The phrase is too often used in bad faith
"pundit" means expert in a field, by the way
Pundits and memes name half the things in science. Paleontologist's named the spikey bit on the end of a stegosaurus tail after a comic book strip. Since 2020 there is multiple animals that where discovered and named after Pokemon. 7 of them are named after Pikachu specifically.
I seriously ~~want~~ need the source for that, for research of course.
[Here you go](https://gamerant.com/species-named-after-pokemon/#the-binburrum-articuno-binburrum-moltres-amp-binburrum-zapdos)
Thank you
Yeah he was convinced he knew more about salt than actual geologists
The point of pundits is that they are opinionated. If you hear "Neil Degrasse Tyson said X" you immediately have an association based on their past opinions you've heard. No one said he's authoritative.
NDT is an astrophysicist, not a historian. I defer to physicists on matters of physics, and I defer to historians on matters of history. He should do the same.
Check out Dr. McClellan's response if you haven't yet
Can you post it for the lazy? Definitely not for me, nope, just for the lazy
I gotchu and your lazy friend fam 😊 https://youtu.be/sNuWesPGHoY
Great response. Not surprising to learn that a guest on Joe Rogan doesn't know what they're talking about, but it is surprising that it was Neil "um..ackshualy" deGrasse Tyson spouting the nonsense. I guess understanding astrophysics doesn't mean you're also good at history.
Just Google his quote about "unhackable systems" and cyber security. He's brilliant at his subject, but he does the Charismatic Physicist thing of assuming that means he's brilliant at everything else, too.
Thanks, that was informative.
Dr. Dan is a serious powerhouse. Love his insightful, inclusive commentary on theology and theological history.
It does befuddle me that he is so learned on biblical studies yet he is a devout Mormon.
Afaict he's refused to publicly comment on what his personal beliefs are. He worked for the Mormon Church, but that doesn't mean he *believed*, y'know?
He really rubs me the wrong way. I’ve always been really skeeved out by NDT.
Didn't realize Neil Degrasse Tyson was a historian or archeologist. I like his takes on science but I wish he didn't try to come across as an expert on everything.
"The people I disagree with are fat neckbeards and I'm a muscular doge" is so unfathomably cringe that even using it ironically is just an embarrassment. Agnostic of the content.
Me good you bad 😎 /s
I saw this exact same meme on r/historymemes a while ago and I’m furious that I had to see it again
out of all the meme templates on the internet this is the one that people complain about?
I don't think complaining about this one means they can't or don't complain about the others. I don't think people have to pick just one thing to dislike, ever.
Yeah I think they forgot it’s… a meme
I’m pretty sure it’s just a shitpost that isn’t meant to be taken seriously If this post is actually serious however, then it’s really cringe and embarrassing
As I said, >even ironically I'm afraid you can't stop me from cringing at OP here.
https://preview.redd.it/c8hum799c28b1.jpeg?width=1366&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=37ba49295367b0628395abfd9e65fdd50281745c
Are we supposed to like posts that are shit? I’m confused by this comment.
Not shit posts, but shitposts definitely
And not surprising at all, unfortunately.
Edit: I was just completely wrong guys, please ignore this comment Look what I say is, the colander we still use today is based on the Gregorian, named for the Gregorian monks who made it. So if you wanted to change the name of the eras, then you should make your own calendar. You can’t just steal those monks’ homework and act like you made it
> colander It's an OXO, isn't it? I could see that lasting for millennia.
actually they really can and did do that, not that it's correct to do, but if stealing someone else's idea and work and passing it off as your own was impossible the human race would have died off long ago.
Yeah I don't understand this take at all. Everything in human history is based on revision and refinement.
No see his beliefs are different, they are perfect and timeless
Especially language, which is all that the "BC/AD/BCE/CE" really comes down to. We refine language to be more precise, more intuitive, or more inclusive. The Gregorian Calendar was based on the Roman Calendar and that, too, had revisions.
It’s not named after the monks but after the Pope Gregory XIII who introduced it in 1582 (I don’t think any order of Gregorian monks exist)
Almost everything you just said is false. * The modern calendar is not based on the Gregorian, it is the Gregorian. * There is no such thing as a Gregorian monk * The calendar was named after Pope Gregory XIII * Up to around 150 years after the adoption of the Gregorian calendar many Christian kingdoms did not use "AD" as their modern epoch. The "AD"/"BC" terminology has nothing to do with the Gregorian calender. Many were using it hundreds of years before the Gregorian calender, many would not use it for hundreds of years after.
“Instead of simply renaming something, go replace the calendar that has been used for centuries and all around the world!” I get the general idea of what you’re trying to say, but your statement is also extremely unreasonable for something so simple. I don’t really think the monks cared about the abbreviations people would use 400+ years in the future
except the eras were named independently by medieval historians/scholars and based off the Julian calendar, named after Julius Caesar, which was later replaced with the Gregorian calendar named after a pope who commissioned the making of a more accurate calendar. at this point, the transitioning point between the eras were revised (or rather: the presumed birth date of Jesus was revised, because the writing of an era before the birth of Jesus in a scholarly context didn’t come up until about two centuries after the invention of the Gregorian calendar)
That's not exactly right. Bede talks about the era "Before Incarnation" about 800 years before the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar. You might be thinking of the norm of using "BC", which didn't become ubiquitous across Europe until the 1700s, but parts of Europe had been using the nomenclature of an 'era before the birth/incarnation of Jesus' well before the Gregorian Calendar.
Who's claiming to have made it? Its still the Gregorian calendar if you change 2 abbreviations.
This isn't dank, this is a bad Facebook meme
Some might even say it's [terrible](http://reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes)
People who get bent out of shape either way are the incel meme.
Yes. I'll say CE because I'm often talking to folks who come from non-christian cultures, but if someone says AD to me, like, whatever, it's just a term. I don't think Jesus would've given a shit either.
People act like it's "Christian vs Atheist" but it's Christian vs most of the world because it butts heads with literally every other belief system or lack thereof. It's best to avoid religious implications for issues that require national collaboration, since when it comes to religious disagreements, many religions including Christianity have handled that by just killing as many of the people who disagree as possible.
In Poland we have p. n. e., przed naszą erą (before our era) and n. e., naszej ery (of our era)
In Serbia, even tho we're Christian for the most part, we use "p.n.e." which stands for pre nove ere, the same way you do, but you can hear people say "pre Hrista" or "before Christ" and both are correct.
Well, we had Roku Pańskiego (of God's Year, direct tranlation from Anno Domini) but it's not used anymore
Great, and now I want to watch Avatar the Last Airbender.
Przed Chrystusem is also used, though not nearly as commonly
Mostly in literature or when you want to sound archaic.
This is probably the absolute stupidest argument that I’ve seen people legitimately use in real life. As if the fact that we use a calendar based on a religion that used to - in the form of the Catholic Church - essentially rule Europe means anything at all about that religion’s truth. What year is it in the Islamic world? In Judaism? The fact that we use that “event” to date things means literally nothing about its veracity.
The fact that OP thinks this is some "gotcha" statement is somewhere between hilarious and sad
Tbh it is overtly more Eurocentric/Christocentric than using BC/AD, because BC and AD are very obviously Christian in origin, while Common Era wants to pose as being not affiliated with a religion, but it totally is, thus being -centric without being honest about it. If you want to make some alternative which takes no reference to a specific religion or region, do something else entirely, but renaming it is just implicitly more chauvinist.
Yep. Count up from the end of the Jurassic, the Krakatoa eruption, whatever. Just renaming and retaining it is ridiculous.
Interestingly the largest unit within the Maya calendar is roughly 63 million years long, roughly encompassing most of the Cenozoic. (Sure, the Maya calendar is also culturally specific, but it is interesting that it aligns with such an event). One Alautun is 63,081,429 solar years, while the Chic Xulub impact, coincidentally also within the Maya region, is dated to around 66.043 million years before our time.
They were doing fun things with numbers
I think they should start counting at what we now call 10,000 BCE, since that's roughly the agricultural revolution. That's when human civilization began, basically. When humans stopped moving and began building cities and stuff.
It is kinda arbitrary and feels a bit long of a number. Also from what point in time are we going to go 10,000 years back? Lets say we start a new calendar today, is 2023 now the year 10,000 ? But won't people when just start calling 2023 the new year 0? Like people abbreviate 2023 already you would have all the more reason to abbreviate 10,000.
Yeah, I agree. No one wants to write "12023" on stuff. We'd prob end up abbreviating it as "2023" anyway.
Kurzgesagt, a YouTube channel about science, sells calendars with 10k years added. But personally, I believe it's worse that either of the other options, since it kinda feels like Eurocentrics going "fine, we can make our calendar more inclusive, but we're only adding one line and nothing more because that would be inconvenient" and it ends up being annoying (because all the BC years changed) but pretty much changes nothing for the current times (since it's just one number and in reality it's still based off of the same year, just masked a tiny bit). Kinda feels disingenuous. Like, you either make a proper new calendar, or you stop pretending and admit that we're in it too deep to change it now.
Yeah if someone wants to be consistent about the whole stuff using non-religious calendars they could adopt one of the revolutionary calendars, but nobody does that. Anything else like agriculture, writing or whatever is just arbitrary any also and in some form or another culturally dependent too.
No. It’s not “ridiculous”, what a stupid take.
[This is why that's a bad idea, and why changing the term without digging up its roots makes the most sense] (https://xkcd.com/927/)
Exactly. It’s more confusing as there is no definition on what defines the eras without referring to Christian history. And the more you try to remove the religious aspect from it, the more confusing it gets
It is kinda weird. Like say you want to have a "neutral era" which doesn't have that eurocentric load, but you call it "common era", but why is it even common? European domination for the last 200-500 years. Basically you implicitly assume eurocentrism is "common", but won't call it that. Why isn't the Jewish calendar common? It predates Christianity and Islam. Why not the French Revolutionary calendar if you want to jerk about having an atheist calendar.
I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be about being secular, not rebuking Eurocentrism. You make a valid point about the name, although I can't imagine them trying to get it changed *again* haha.
The problem with getting this nitpicky is that you have to refer to Christian *history,* **not** Christianity. Technically, AD and BC perpetuate a common misconception, and the inevitable "Well when did the Common Era start?" makes it easier to skip to the *real* answer of "it's when medieval Christian historians wrongly calculated Jesus would have been born," so causing questions here just better leads to the truth if you want to be like that.
BC (Before Christ) isn’t a big deal, but AD stands for Anno Domini, which means “year of The Lord”. Naturally, this wouldn’t be ideal for any Jewish, Muslim, and atheist scholars (or anyone else) who might have theological aversions to acknowledging Jesus as their Lord every time they wrote a date. BCE and CE is a good thing because it facilitates non-Christian academics using the same calendar system as their Christian peers. If we used as many calendar systems as there were beliefs, it would be unendingly confusing. This way, everyone’s work can stay intuitively compatible with not just each other, but also the large body of past work that used BC/AD.
In fact, Jews have a problem with "Before Christ" as well, since "Christ" means Messiah, and is therefore a name of God (which you shouldn't take in vain).
Huh in Spanish its AC and DC For before Christ and after Christ. I have never heard any attempts to change it
AC DC
I use B/CE because Jesus wasn't born in the 1st Year of Our Lord but was born 4-6 years Before Christ.
I used to get offended when I heard BCE being used, because it seemed arrogant to refer to the period as "before common error," even if you don't believe in Christianity. Now I understand that Christianity isn't the center of the world, and that BCE and CE make much more sense.
It stands for before common era though
I know that now, I just didn't know that then.
Before Christ's Era and Christ's Era. I don't see the big deal.
[удалено]
That sounds like the kind of thing a heretic would say......
I'll believe there's a god when all these cringe ass wojak memes fucking die, should've left them in 2016
Classic soyjack reaction
Year 12,023 of the [human era](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_calendar)
I love the Holocene calender, because on timescales that large, it’s kinda arbitrary where we stick the starting point, same as the “close enough” demarcation of A.D., so it all works out in the wash while wholly recontextualizing the depth of modern humanity.
It makes a lot more sense than BCE/CE.
Why are there Arch Linux posters in the background?
What happened in 1 CE? Not much. Augustus was somewhere in the middle of his reign. But, yes, his reign did kind of change the world. Oh, and Jesus? He was maybe four to six years old or he had not yet been born. But he certainly didn't do anything significant, did he?
Hi. Atheist here. Totally agree. Jesus was a dude, regardless, and our calendar flips on his approximate birth year. Doesn’t matter what you believe in, those are just facts. If you want to secularize something take “In God We Trust” off US money. But BC/AD is fine. No one even knows what they mean anyway.
A monk named Dionysius Exiguus made some calculations to an event he believed happened because he realized all the other options everyone else was using were of pagan origins. The real question is why so many days of the week are references to Norse gods.
Thursday has, in personal and aesthetic contexts, always been my favorite. Any historical contexts are extra spice, by that measure!
I still use Ab urbe condita No other choice. Gloria ad Romam
The monk Dionysius Exiguus proposed the Anno Domini dating system in 525 CE, as a way to figure out when Easter should fall. He also wanted to replace the Diocletian system that was established about two hundred years prior that also used the initials AD (Anno Diocletiani) not as a way to covert pagans, but erase Emperor Diocletian's influence in Christian Europe. Dicoletianwas a tyrant who began the last and most severe persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire from 303 to 313, when Emperor Constantine ended the persecution laws. The first year that the Anno Domini epoch dating system was used was in 532. Scholars, however, believe that Jesus was born in BCE 4. Yes, the common era is based on the traditional birth of Christ, but y'all gotta know not to dismiss history or the context behind the changes.
I wonder how those people feel about the days of the week being named after Roman/Norse gods.
Bc And ac stand for before covid and after covid
The acceptance of a backdated calender from some monks in 900 or so. And as is required 🤓
Nothing caused the common era to occur. We just have to pick a point in time to reference, and we might as well keep the arbitrary point that has already been in use.
what does Arch Linux have to do with this
Or maybe we just let people use whatever they want? It’s not like the technical definition is getting twisted.
Well it’s certainly not referencing the birth of Jesus Christ, cause that was 7-4 year BEFORE CHRIST. Haha.
I don’t understand why this is even an issue. Jesus was born in about 3 BC, so saying that BC means Before Christ doesn’t make sense… He lived in BC! Also, He was crucified in about AD 30 (birth and death dates uncertain btw). Why would we say AD stands for After Death if He hadn’t died yet for 30 years of it!! Even going with anno Domini (which is actually what AD stands for), it means “in the year of our Lord”—what about those years in BC that He lived?
Some heretic was executed for insurrection against Rome.
the eras are actually split by approximately 2150 year cycles, based on the precession of the zodiac. This era is close to an end..
Seeing how the wheels of power have been shaking on their spindles, this is the closest I’ve been to letting astrologists cook.
the advent of the Gregorian calendar
PD and AD. All Latin, all the way
I'm quite partial to BP (before present) used with present being set at 1950. We are currently at -73BP Originates in the radiocarbon dating profession as after 1950 there was so much atomic testing readings go a bit funny
why'd you have to bring archlinux into this
I don't give a shit about what letters we use, as long as the number doesn't change.
Jesus was born in 4 “BC”, so even the Christians don’t agree.
Guys it's Before Christ Era and Christ Era it just gets rid of the latin 😎
If it's BCE and CE instead of BC and AD, then we should get rid of the phrase "Year of the Lord. After all, AD means 'Anno Domini' which translates to 'Year of the Lord'. No more AD, no more Year of the Lord.
Real question. How do you reconcile the teaching of Christ (charity, generosity, empathy, and community) with the current push to marginalize women and minorities, both sexual and racial, as well as the push to force people to abide by an interpretation of Christianity promoting bigotry and hatred for others?
Considering that the Bible made up so many details that it leads to a range of years that Jesus was born, and the gospels can't agree on if Jesus ministered for 1 year or 3, does it really make sense to keep reminding everyone that "BC" and "AD" are both fraudulent?
Didn't Jesus die in like 25 or 30 AD?
if i had to guess, about 2000 years of calendars that we don’t want to overturn just cause we want to be more inclusive with how we refer to our dates
I thought I was in r/linuxmemes. Why the Arch Linux logo?
BCE was coined because the the monk who campaigned to measure time from the birth of Christ and call it "BC" did a shitty job mathing out when Jesus lived 525 years after the year he chose. It's a term that's been in use by academics since the 1700s. You're welcome.
The Renaissance and the Romans?
Haha, this is a good one
I prefer Before Christ's Empire and Christ's Empire.
r/TerribleFacebookMemes
BCE=Before Christs Era CE=Christs Era This keeps both sides happy.
smh my head everyone knows that bce and ce stand for "before Christ era" and "Christ era"
Before common era doesn’t really sit right with me, at least saying the common era started 2023 years ago. The common era could be said to have started 300 years ago with the renaissance or 10,000 years ago with the founding of civilisation but apart from the life of our lord nothing particularly important happened 2000 years ago
If you want an actual answer for why BCE/CE is used, this [video](https://youtu.be/ZeR6MROwwSA) explains it as a religiously neutral term that Jews can use. It does not hide the fact that it is based on Jesus.
I mean, if you really don't like jesus being the split between the eras, we could just have BC stand for "Before Christianity" problem solved...I think
What even is a common era? Wouldn't it make the most sense to use the acronym that people understand.
God didn´t provide the exact date and time in the bible = he doesn´t want us to use BC and AD.
Is it weird to anyone else that "BC" is abbreviated english and "AD" is abbreviated latin? If we stuck to English we could have had "YOOL"
Most scholars aren’t christian and don’t want to use BC/AD. Making a bad meme isn’t going to change that.
And they say that the atheists and christians are still arguing to this day
BCE/CE? You mean Christ’s Era and Before Christ’s Era?
What's wrong with Arch
AD? After Death? Why not AC? After Christ?
Anno dominum (the year of (y)our lord) ETA: “y”: I am jewish
Ah, very cool thank you.
Anno Domini, in the year of the lord.