|
B.C. And A.D.
|
 (October 4, 2012 at 6:28 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I prefer A.D. over B.C. With B.C. you have to think backwards and it'd be -2012 B.C. today. I prefer my years to be positive. All BCE dates are also inaccurate by four years I believe.
But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, His Son, purifies us from all sin.
 (October 4, 2012 at 8:23 pm)Polaris Wrote:(October 4, 2012 at 6:28 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I prefer A.D. over B.C. With B.C. you have to think backwards and it'd be -2012 B.C. today. I prefer my years to be positive. I thought it was changed because Jesus wasn't born in the year zero, and if it were something more arbitrary than directly referencing his birth they could slip the error under the rug, so to speak. John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. 
Why don't we use the Big Bang as our starting point.
This would be the year 13 billion, 5 hundred million... OK, I know, we can't date it to that degree of accuracy but it would be an appropriate way to do it.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too." ... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept "(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question" ... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist  Quote:All BCE dates are also inaccurate by four years I believe. Actually, 5. Dionysius Exiguus forgot the 4 years that Augustus reigned as Octavian ( 31-27) and he forgot the Year Zero.  (October 4, 2012 at 8:23 pm)Polaris Wrote:(October 4, 2012 at 6:28 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I prefer A.D. over B.C. With B.C. you have to think backwards and it'd be -2012 B.C. today. I prefer my years to be positive. This is like the third time this week that I've made what I thought would be obviously a joke, and someone took it seriously. 
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence." -- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).   (October 1, 2012 at 11:20 am)LiakosVikernes Wrote: 1.Is this accepted worldwide? China has it's own calander and Jews have theirs. But the most used is solely for consistency in global transactions and communication. But the religious use of BC and AD are fucking stupid. No one can put an exact date, to the day and hour and minute of the birth of the planet, it was manifested over time, not born. Pluss there is absolutly no good reason to place the importance of one alleged person as being central to evolution by superstitiously counting the years since his Hudini act. "Common era" is all we as a species in reality have. We all rotate around the sun at the same time so while we cant fit that many zeros on years in terms of billions, our common use is 2012. I say BCE and CE, because that in reality is the only thing we can universally measure in terms of years. Anything else is mere superstition. I find it funny that the fans of the Jesus myth that started our common use of years blindly hope for their super hero who has not stopped violence or suffering in that alleged 2000 year period. Nice bodyguard you got there guys. Fakes a suicide and then sits on his hands all that time bribing you with cookies and threats of hell, all while the same pain and suffering that happened before still continues today. 2012 is meaningless in the age of the universe. But we still need some arbitrary starting point to track our motion in terms of years. But we can do it without superstition. 
Ad (BC not so much) gets nonsensical to the point of farce when talking about centuries rather than specific years. "The 20th century in the year of our lord" is utter gibberish; whereas "the 20th century of the common era" makes perfect sense.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
 (October 2, 2012 at 2:59 am)Justtristo Wrote: That is the accepted year numbering system in the Islamic world, so it is the year 1433 in the Islamic world. Which makes them still in the 15th century ;D I have about fifteen jokes for this but I'm sure you can guess most of them. You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis. (October 8, 2012 at 11:39 am)Stimbo Wrote: Ad (BC not so much) gets nonsensical to the point of farce when talking about centuries rather than specific years. "The 20th century in the year of our lord" is utter gibberish; whereas "the 20th century of the common era" makes perfect sense.I fucking hate "year of our lord" seriously. I hate the people who pretend it is just cerimonial when it was clearly started by idiots who believed in the divine right of kings. It is just like idiots who say "bless you". Ok, yea I get it it is just being polite. BUT DAMN IT it did start as a litteral superstitiion that your spirit was trying to escape your body. That is why I dont say it. But I am a bit of a hypocrite on word and phrase uses. I do get down on gays geting bent out of shape over the use of the word gay like "that is so gay" for example. Before the word gay was popular to slur homosexuals it merely ment "happy". So if words can change and they do I don't think gays should get bent out of shape if someone says "that is so gay". Same with the word "retarded". No compassionate person thinks mentally handicap people should be slured. But if I say "that is retarded" I am not in the context of that sentence refuring to mental illness. AND I am a hypocrite because my favorite NFL team has a name that when the word was first used was a slur against native Americans. But that was then and no Redskins fan views that nickname the same way. Anymore than gays using the word gay use it in the same context when the word became a slur. I hope I didn't open up a can of worms here because pejoritives were not the subject mater of the thread. Just that words have more than one meaning and context does matter. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
