Very disappointed

[OzzyKP]

Wow, Andrew_RT, what a bigot.

Felch.

[slnz]

Actually I do feel obliged to point out that 'Common Era' notation is probably a construct of non Christian religions and is in wide use within Judaism to name but one.

So use BCE by all means but don't be surprised when someone mistakes you for a religious fanatic

... and I feel obliged to point out that CE/BCE is the religiously neutral way of writing years; it's not associated with any particular religions, that's the point.

It is also recommended for being a bit more semantically correct, as in the light of contemporary research Christ was actually born around 4 BC

This is actually the only matter in which I've noticed this Andrew_RT dude to have even a halfway valid point buried under the nitpicking whine...

[OzzyKP]

This is actually the only matter in which I've noticed this Andrew_RT dude to have even a halfway valid point buried under the nitpicking whine...

True. I prefer AD/BC just from tradition, but I see the argument for CE/BCE.

[Willem]

Also it is BCE(before common era), not BC
and it is CE(common era), not AD

BCE/CE is a very recent way of establishing the division of the ancient times from the more modern. For almost 2000 years in Western culture it has been BC/AD and in many circles that is still the common usage. In fact, probably the only people who use BCE/CE are politically correct historians. Sorry if you disagree with that but that's the way it is.

[Andrew_RT]

What does that have to do with anything, argument from tradition/popularity?!
And we all know that tradition never changes, that's why we still have slavery, ban on interracial marriages and why women still can't vote...

[redstar1]

BCE/CE is a very recent way of establishing the division of the ancient times from the more modern. For almost 2000 years in Western culture it has been BC/AD and in many circles that is still the common usage. In fact, probably the only people who use BCE/CE are politically correct historians. Sorry if you disagree with that but that's the way it is.

It's not 'very recent' by any means. It appears in texts from the early 1700's, if not earlier. Jews generally use BCE/CE when referring to the Gregorian calendar. Asians have used something very similar when referring to our calendar as well.

Both are correct, and both should be taught. Personally I would never think to use anything other than BC/AD, and I am very non-religious. I do understand the importance of religion in our history however, and its importance to the Gregorian calendar. I don't beleive me using AD/BC lends any credence to religious beleifs others may have, nor subverts my own non-religious beleifs.

[Andrew_RT]

I don't beleive me using AD/BC lends any credence to religious beleifs others may have, nor subverts my own non-religious beleifs.

You believe wrong, you promote institutionalized superstition(religion) every time you use it.

[Willem]

What does that have to do with anything, argument from tradition/popularity?!

It means that regardless of what you want to believe, BC/AD is the most common and accepted form when describing that division. It's more correct within Western culture to use that designation rather than BCE/CE.

[Willem]

It's not 'very recent' by any means. It appears in texts from the early 1700's, if not earlier.

Considering that AD/BC has been in use since the days of the Roman Empire that still makes the usage of BCE/CE very recent. 300 years is squat compared to almost 2000.

[redstar1]

You believe wrong, you promote institutionalized superstition(religion) every time you use it.

Don't be ridiculous, anyone seeing me write such a thing would not automatically assume I was making a point with reference to a Jewish lad whos birth upon which the Gregorian calendar starts counting.

You do actually sound like a religious fanatic.

[redstar1]

Considering that AD/BC has been in use since the days of the Roman Empire that still makes the usage of BCE/CE very recent. 300 years is squat compared to almost 2000.

It origionated in 525. So lets say 300 out of 1500... 20%. Not all that recent.

[bobbo008]

Perhaps we'd all do well for ourselves and this site if we did not acknowledge inflammatory statements from an individual who does not desire a respectful conversation and refuses to question his own beliefs?

And really, the "common era" would still begin at the birth of Christ, which is still supporting this institutionalized superstition.

Critical thinking skills are falling away like common sense these days...

[-Jrabbit]

Now that it's digressed to BC vs CE, it doesn't really matter.

As for his trolling, whattya do? People get a stick up their arses and feel compelled to hold forth. Sometimes that leads to good discussions. This time, not so much. It's the nature of the interwebs.

[Andrew_RT]

And really, the "common era" would still begin at the birth of Christ, which is still supporting this institutionalized superstition.

Stop spewing idiocy, Jesus never existed-

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

get informed already...

[OzzyKP]

Haha, not only does he dispute the divinity of Jesus (as reasonable atheists do) but he maintains that the guy never even existed (thus securing his spot among wacko atheists).