>BCE >CE

>>3267679
Yeah it's pretty retarded, but getting butthurt about it is also retarded

Why do Americans insist on using BC instead of CE?

File: jesuschristislord.jpg (18KB, 332x444px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 332x444px

No matter what atheists do, they will never truly escape the massive influence of Our Lord and Saviour.

>>3267709
>they will never truly escape the massive influence of Medieval Monks

File: 1489530131238.jpg (72KB, 583x581px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 583x581px

>>3267698
From what I can tell, CE is really only used by Americans. Every English history related medium I've encountered never strays from BC/AD.
It truly is retarded, because it's literally the same calendar. If you're going to promote a meme atheist calendar, at least do the HE shit.
Honestly, how is BC/AD different from the fact that Week names are named after Pagan gods?

BCE & CE is the superior choice until our next dating system comes about.

File: lanky.png (45KB, 180x188px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 180x188px

>>3267738
>HE
HAS

Do you think people got this autistically invested when they switched from Anno Mundi to Anno Domini?

File: 1496882154867.png (636KB, 523x726px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 523x726px

>>3267760
At least those are two different systems. This is the same system with a name change.

(((Common Era))) literally means nothing. Also, how is the traditional birth of Jesus the beginning of a "common" era at all? Wouldn't Moslems argue that their Calendar represents the beginning of their civilization?

If you're going to use it, at least acknowledge it. Don't be a cunt

>>3267738
The br*tish are just crypto Americans

File: 1499245974952.jpg (22KB, 462x450px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 462x450px

I've gone full contrarian, and refuse to use BC, instead using a.C and a.D.

>>3267738
China

公元
公元前

File: 1500175966488.jpg (71KB, 640x796px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 640x796px

>>3267852
>China uses CE
>Japan uses AD

>>3267772
But that's the thing. it's not really the birth of Jesus Christ, they messed up by 2 years originally. So honestly, BC makes little sense. I used to think like you before I realized that. I have an article to prove it. It was on JSTOR though so unless you have database access, you may not be able to see it.
And honestly, it doesn't matter either way so stop making it matter.

Let people use what they want. I usually use B.C. when referring to European/ IndoEuropean history where Christ's birth may have been relevant but CE and BCE when referring to the East and Early American and South American civilizations.

File: 1498794803733.jpg (69KB, 306x331px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 306x331px

>>3267903
Yeah, but it's the traditional birth. It's still the name the people who made it gave it, and I don't believe you can take that away from it.

I'm very much against the erasure of cultural history, especially in the defense of "including more cultures."
When you take away the cultural history of something, you are not making it multicultural, you are making it acultural.

>>3267912
I get that but if we are thinking in terms of empiricism and scholarship, it is incorrect as it is not his birth but just an arbitrary date with all things considered. So really now, does it matter if we call an arbitrary date common era or correct era or anything else besides before christ? Honestly, all those other options I listed are technically more correct since Jesus's birth was not a year after 1 B.C. It just wasn't 1 year before his birth.

File: 1502356174078.png (525KB, 435x842px) Image search: [Google]

525KB, 435x842px

>>3267929
I'd be more obliged to agree with you if that were the motive behind the BCE/CE calendar, and not the cynical attempt to wipe away Christ and the History of Christianity from the history books that it is.
I firmly believe the history behind its derivation is more important than a slight miscalculation.

In fact, I'd defend it in the case that Christ himself had never been born, and was nothing more than a simple myth.

>>3267698
Why do you insist on removing the reference to Christ when the dating system is still based on his existence? Common? Common what? Commonly known as anno domini. Fucking regressive. Why don't you just call Marx's birthday year zero and get it over with.

>>3267939
It's part of the motive though. Remember, it is mostly used by historians and scholars. They want to be as accurate as possible. The other part(which you are talking about) is a bit silly but yes, they don't want to take a political or religious stance when telling history, so they think it more objective to be rid of it. It's a combination of both though.
I say use what you want but don't be perturbed if professionals use CE and BCE. They are just trying their best to be well...professionals in every way.

File: 1500296130631.png (196KB, 843x1034px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 843x1034px

>>3267954
I don't think it professional at all, and I've never heard an argument for its accuracy being its motive, only its cultural implications. And thusly, have never seen a professional source where it is prioritized over BC/AD, instead by unprofessionals and the historical laity. My Classics professor once called it dumb, but politically correct, so that's what he used.
I personally hate cultural whitewashing

File: b35.jpg (18KB, 353x334px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 353x334px

>AD
>not Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi

File: 1488313784900.gif (2MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x180px

>The term "Common Era" can be found in English as early as 1708,[6]and became more widely used in the mid-19th century by Jewish academics.
/pol/ was right again

File: makek.png (323KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1024x512px

>>3267954
>they don't want to take a religious or political stance
Oh I'm laffin

>>3267752
NO

File: 1471030987369.gif (2MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x150px

>People use BCE/CE to distance themselves from Christianity
>Still use Jesus' birth as an arbitrary point for separating the two epochs