BC & AD vs BCE & CE

>>1852771
Jesus Christ Can't verfiably proven to have existed, however since the calendar is based on his supposed birth CE an BCE are adequate.

BC and BCE were made up by faggots that want to control what other people say. There is literally nothing wrong with BC and AD. Sure, it's based around Jesus Chrit's death but so what. It doesn't matter. Other calendars from other parts of the world base themselves off of stupid things too. BC and BCE don't even get around the Jesus thing either because the point in which it goes from BC to BCE is still based on Jesus's death so it doesn't even change anything. Plus BC and BCE are too similar. One could easily mess it up and confuse everyone with a typo. Whereas BC and AD are very distinguishable. BC and AD are perfectly fine. There is no problem that needs to be fixed by muddying it up with BC and BCE. What does Common Era even mean anyways? It's just dumb. If it ain't broke don't fix it . Especially don't fix it with something worse than was already there.

>>1852856
Sorry replace the BCs in there with CE. I meant CE. Maybe it's my own stupidity but I even fuck up CE and BCE trying to rant specifically about it.

>>1852771
Bc and AD. Fuck this pandering pc bullshit. I'm glad Noone takes BCE/CE seriously anymore.

No matter what term is used, it is based on the birth of Jesus, and there is nothing more "common" about the eras after his birth than there are before.

>>1852856
its based on his birth

the more I see >CE >BCE REEEEEE threads reposted and rehashed the more in encourages me to use them to piss off those autists tbqh

>>1852771

If you're going to admit to giving such extraordinary amount of relevance to Christianity as to call everything part of the christian era, you might as well use Anno Domini and save yourself the three letter bullshit.

Anno Domini sounds nice, it provides better didactic context, it has seen much more use and spread and doesnt give off an aura of high brow, masturbatory academia rethoric.

>>1852771
I use BC/AD personally.

But it doesn't matter. I find it kind of silly for someone to try to distance themselves from Christianity while using a dating system explicitly based on Christianity (what is the "Common Era", precisely, if not the commonly held date for the birth of Christ?), but I never get mad or bring it up, because again it really doesn't matter.

Only thing that makes me a little ehh is when people use BCE/CE explicitly to piss others off and are open about it. I guess it doesn't make me mad per se, it's just needlessly mean and I don't care for it.

I use UC.

>>1852771
It really doesn't matter.
BCE and CE are arbitrary, secular and require no adjustment of exceedingly common norms.

>>1852914
BCE and CE are based on BC and AD which are based on the birth of Jesus.
However since the estimation of BC/AD was wrong when compared to our current estimation it can not be said that BCE and CE are based on the birth of Jesus even if the system that they imitate professes to be based on it.

>>1852771
BCE and CE are superior because we have since realized that Jesus of Nazareth probably was not actually born in 1 AD/CE. You can go ahead and forget all the arguments about Christian heritage and all that; BC/AD is inferior because, strictly speaking, it is incorrect.

Obviously there's no getting away from the Christian heritage of the system, since the "common era" is still based on the Christian calendar. That's absolutely fine; there's a whole lot of Christian heritage in western culture and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

The only other anti-AD/BC argument with a bare minimum of respectability is that "AD" is undesirable because it results in non-Christians obliquely referring to Christ as "lord" (domini), but that's a strange hill to die on considering that we've got days of the week named after Norse gods and other such things. I doubt that many people know what "AD" stands for anyway.