Tony Erikson Posted September 25, 2011 Author Share Posted September 25, 2011 Well, Tony, If the BBC had said that they were doing this to fit with the modern world then it would not be so ridiculous. They have told us their reasons apparently......and how they got to this decision I have no idea. What's next? Do we give dates in alternative calendars too?? Do we renumber the years to avoid having any reference to a Christ?? The years are numbered as they are for a reason(yes I know it's dubious too, but hey that's how they are), so why not use the AD and BC? It's ridiculous. Out of interest, does anyone know what the National Curriculum says on this? As if that's still AD and BC it's just going to confuse the kids. I made a point i my thread about how I believe we should just use how many years ago it was. We don't need BC, BCE or AD. We pretty much know the dates of the first civilisation so could use that as the starting date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I made a point i my thread about how I believe we should just use how many years ago it was. We don't need BC, BCE or AD. We pretty much know the dates of the first civilisation so could use that as the starting date. It's worth keeping the dates the same, especially the years. Or you will just end up making a lot of work for computer programmers, who traditionally don't like that sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Casper Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I have started a thread on this and I agree with the BBC. As an atheist living in a secular country why should anything that happened earlier than 2000 years ago be labelled as BC. there's no proof the man even existed and if he did he was likely mentally ill. Not really appropriate if you ask me. I was going to rant about if they don't like it then they can always live somewhere else...but, the 'bold' is a very valid point and one i agree with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel666 Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Also, why don't they seem to take into account that such changes, and their statement as to why, could offend Christians? Who is it who decides who is offended by what? And who get's preferential treatment when deciding? Is there anyone reading who is from a non Christian religion who could say they were the slightest bit offended by AD/BC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddycoffee Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I much prefer to use BCE and CE and have done for years. There are many problems with using the birth of christ as the signifier, it is just such a wooly concept, especially as there have been errors and a lack of a year zero. Also the concept wasn't used until hundreds of years later and it makes it seem as though people were counting their years up and down at the time, when in fact they tended to count the years by the reign of the current emporer or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel666 Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I made a point i my thread about how I believe we should just use how many years ago it was. We don't need BC, BCE or AD. We pretty much know the dates of the first civilisation so could use that as the starting date. I was just about to comment that it would make things a lot easier, but after consideration I am not so sure! As we are not so sure about specific dates a log time ago it's good to have some point to work backwards from. Would be difficult to pin down a year zero because with new findings and discoveries we would have to keep changing it. Unless we went the whole hog and renamed today as September 25th 13,400,000,000,000ish. Would make writing cheques difficult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel666 Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Also, there is nothing to prevent you using BC or AD. Bit of fake outrage there, really. In reality, it is like the "outrage" that came about when centigrade changed to Celsius - or marathon to snickers. You're right of course. It's the pathetic reason of "to not offend minority groups" that annoys. It's just daft, really it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Also, there is nothing to prevent you using BC or AD. Bit of fake outrage there, really. In reality, it is like the "outrage" that came about when centigrade changed to Celsius - or marathon to snickers. they should rename snickers back to marathon and starburst back to opal fruits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 More pandering, just cos something Christian related might upset a few Muslims or whoever.. The PC Brigade seriously needs to shut up IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel666 Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 they should rename snickers back to marathon and starburst back to opal fruits Yeah I am offended by the changes Opal Fruits remind me of long car journeys in my dads Lada in the 80s. I loved the green ones! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.