Dating systems: BC and AD, or BCE and CE?

[kranger3]

I wouldn't care if the calendar system would be based on the birth of Mohammed or the death of Bob the super-alien, as long as a system allows everybody to put events on the same timescale. That people like it or not, religion is part of human history and of the fabric of human experience, so trying to get it out of history is revisionism in its worst form. Using BC/AD doesn't force-convert people, it just aknowledges the historical fact that a certain culture, of Christian tradition, used that system for a long time and this relic has become a standard.]
I think this depends on the environment you are in. If you try to follow Kant´s Categorical Imperative it seems logical to not use the BC / AD system in the unversity seminar room. At least here, since Christians are normally a minority in these rooms. As a teacher I suspect I should be "neutral", especially as a history teacher, since History of Religions is also part of the subject. I would happily use an other dating system, but since the textbooks my students work with are using this chronology, it would be rather confusing them, if I used other dates, which would end in very silly statements and test results. Also, I do not understand what the problem is. Everybody understands what is meant with CE or BCE, so the message apparently works. I could equally start complaining that different languages exist. How dares one use the word "Kindergarten" in english, where you could use "Children´s Garden" as well. That is how language works, it changes all the time #dialects, #new words etc. That´s how history works. It is change. So, all I can see in your argument is some kind of unnecessary conservatism. I see it a bit more chilled, and do not really mind. I could call a cow a pig, if the person I talk to understands what is meant, it doesn´t really matter.

I wouldn't care if the calendar system would be based on the birth of Mohammed or the death of Bob the super-alien, as long as a system allows everybody to put events on the same timescale. That people like it or not, religion is part of human history and of the fabric of human experience, so trying to get it out of history is revisionism in its worst form. Using BC/AD doesn't force-convert people, it just aknowledges the historical fact that a certain culture, of Christian tradition, used that system for a long time and this relic has become a standard.

I understand your point, but since both BC/AD and BCE/CE are one and the same, that is both based on the same reference point, i.e. the traditionally assigned date for the birth of Christ, I find it a moot point to try and use a different term that may seem less religiously charged, to identify the same event. To me, it looks like hypocrisy. We refer to a religious event, but we don't want to name that religious event... I just don't see the point. Anybody sitting in a seminar does know what BCE and CE refers to, whatever their cultural/religious background. Calling a cow a "xyz" will still refer to a cow for the Hindus, with all the religiuous aspects relatedto it. Naming or un-naming the event doesn't erase the event.

I fully agree. But why is it necessary to acknowledge? The terms we use alway influence our thinking.

You are right, the terms influence our thinking. But personnally, I don't think that this renaming changes the reference point in the deeper sense. Since it still retains the meaning of the event, why spend such effort to try and go around it? I would have found it way more logical to change the reference point instead of the name.

I don't see it as the need to acknowledge the tradition, but instead I don't see why is there a need to change it, since it works. If we take a historical example, I find more logic behind the introduction of the French revolutionary calendar because it assigns a totally new reference point in the dating system, which ends up excluding the religious significance of it.

quote="caiusbeerquitius" post=298326]I am not in favour of organized atheism, but I would like to point out one thing, since what you write in your first sentence is repeated everywhere and always, but repetition does not make it correct.

It is repeated simple because everything in this thread stems from a single premise. Change the premise, and the whole argument changes.

quote="caiusbeerquitius" post=298326]Clearly atheism, defined as "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." (WP) is not a belief. [/quote]
If one believes that there is no deity, since it cannot be proven to be true (as any other faith cannot be proven to be true) then it means that it is a belief. I don't see why if someones believes that there is one or many god/gods, it is considered a belief, while if somenone else believes that there are no deity/ies, it is not a belief. Putting forward the proposition/premise of the non-existence of deity/deities, as being true, looks like a belief to me... But we're getting into semantics now...!

Don't worry I don't take it as a personal attack, but as a very interesting debate. I don't respond to personal attacks anyway, as they're not worth my time . Posts that all agree on the same thing tend to become boring quite fast, don't you agree?