flamingjimmy Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 does anyone other than historians and pre-historians actually use BC, AD, CE or BCE? Yes. extra characters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel666 Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I'm not an ethnic minority nor am I religious and I completely agree with the eradication of its use. The thing is, Christianity is so infused with the calculation of years, why change the name to ignore the fact? In education for example, how would you answer the question of what started the Common Era at year 0? Find something else that happened around that time? On a side note.....Christians have found a way of getting round the reasons of the intended change by using the term CE(Christian Era)themselves. It's a situation that can't be solved completely, so why try and change it at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney 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 wouldn't disagree with that. Its the reason they give that's the problem.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney 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. This is a prime example of what's wrong with this country... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Celsius or snickers? I like celsius. Its what I was taught at school. As for the Snickers outrage its getting like Nazi Germany all over again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bojangles 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.With you on most likely being a nutter, but isn't it the case that there's more evidence for his existence than there is for Julius Caesar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 With you on most likely being a nutter, but isn't it the case that there's more evidence for his existence than there is for Julius Caesar? No, absolutely not. For one thing, we actually have Julius Ceasar's writings himself, not some supposed sayings of his that were compiled decades after his death, his actual writings, that were published in his time. Then we also have numerous references by his contemporaries, for example the letters of Cicero, which are fascinating by the way. There were a numerous others who wrote about him. Then we've got busts that were made of his face, like my avatar, there are numerous statues of him from around the time, there are also coins with his face and name on etc. Also, there is substantial archaeological evidence of some of the battles that he fought. In comparison, there is 0 contemporary evidence for Jesus, not a single solitary piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 There is some contemporary evidence that the person now known as Jesus actually did exist (though you do have to interpret it, rather than the straightforward evidence of GJC) - but nothing like the mass that there is for GJC. go on.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 It wouldn't necessarily be as much work as you think. Most computer software processes dates in Unix time - which started on 00:00:00 UTC on 1 January 1970. Maybe we should switch to defining dates as Before Unix (BU) and Anno Unix (AU). mmm. You reckon we could smoothly handle a jump of 2000 years into the future? Instead of 2012 next year would be, say, 5127? You are an optimist, I will give you that. Today's modern systems would have no bother, but any 32 bit effort is likely to run into difficulties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Oh there is little bits here and there - none of it proves the existence of jesus, but it could be interpreted in such a way as to say that jesus as a person, and not the son of god, actually existed. From the historicity wiki page: "The evidence for the existence of Jesus all comes from after his lifetime" Correct me if I'm wrong but that would mean that would mean that there is 0 contemporary evidence for Jesus. I look at it like robin hood I've never been entirely convinced he ever existed either to be honest. edit: Hang on, you know GJC is caesar, not jesus, right? Just realised it wasn't very clear Yeah I got that, don't worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.