What do B.C. and A.D. stand for if you're an atheist?? I know that there's something....
Printable View
What do B.C. and A.D. stand for if you're an atheist?? I know that there's something....
BC stands for "before Christ." AD actually stands for the Latin phrase "anno domini" which means "in the year of our Lord." This doesn't really change even if you're an atheist. It's simply intended as a point in time to use for reference.
EDIT: AD can also be referred to as CE (Common Era) if that helps. In that case, it'd be BCE / CE.
Yeah, Vamp... Jehovah's Witnesses use BCE and CE and it seems to be gaining popularity elsewhere too.
To me, A.D. always meant "After Death" lol. I've known practically all my life that it doesn't really mean that, but I can never remember the latin to save my life.
I was confused about it for a while, because I thought: "If BC is 'before christ' and AD is 'after death' then what were the years in between called? When Jesus was alive." So I had to look it up to find out.
I do not use AD or BC on principle.
The non xtian tends to prefer CE or (Common Era) and BCE (before common Era)
I personally prefer to use EV - Eva Vulgaris - Latin for the same and it sounds more contemptuous.
Unfortunately no one has revised the way we count years since it was realized Jesus doesn't actually exist.
B.C. and A.D. stand for Before Christ and Anno Domini as stated above, but most atheists I know have no problem with using them. C.E. and B.C.E. are alternates for those that insist on being politically correct.
I just use BC and AD even though I am agnostic. BCE/CE is just another result of our lame-ass politically correct culture.
I personally wouldn't care if the system was based around the birth and death of a sheep named Dickface. It's just a way to refer to things.
Thanks. I've been using B.C. and A.D. all my life but want to start using C.E. and B.C.E. Thanks again!!
Most people will agree that he did exist, atleast in the sense that he was a real person who was born in that time.
I don't see why Atheists wouldn't use it, it's just a reference, you don't have to believe anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampyre
Yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Refusing to use terms like B.C and/or A.D because of their old implications seems a little...dare I say...radical?
For one to flat out reject that there was indeed a man who lived named Jesus Christ is just going overboard. There was a man, and plenty of research has shown it. Weather or not you believe he was the son of God is up to you.
Okay, if you are going to argue that there was once a man named Iesus who lived in Palestine 2,000 years ago, then yes, there were many, in fact. But to say that there was one who was a prophetic figure with a large following is a bit absurd, as the bible is really the only 'historical' account of this. Basically, no other historian heard about this man except for a couple gentiles in Palestine who waited a few hundred years to write any of the guy's story down. (PS Christ is a title not a name)
Oh, you mean other then the work done by Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, and Roman historian Carius Cornelius Tacitus?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
The Babylonian Talmud, Suetonius another Roman historian? Phlegon the Greek historian? Lucian of Samosata? Mara Bar-Serapion the Syrian stoic philosopher?
I wonder why so many martyrs died in the first century A.D. Thousands will not die for the sake of a lie.
Also, it's spelled Iesous.
Actually I did some research once on an orthodox Jewish site. They had a couple of "possible" candidates for Jesus. One was a travelling rabbi called Jesus something or the other that roamed around on a donkey and had a small following before the romans killed him for being a preachy SOB. There were a few others as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
The Jewish web site was proposing that Jesus was an amalgam. A bit like the Robin Hood legend from England. There was a Robert of Loxley - but his deeds probably got merged together with a bunch of other local tales about local outlaws and bandits until Robin Hood became the larger than life character we know him as today.
Same as Jesus. Take the combined stories of these 3 or so possible travelling rabbi Jesuses. Borrow some "miracles" from Mithras and Zoroasterism, add in a virgin birth - borrowed of course from any number of preceding pagan systems such as the greeks, egyptians, others. Add in a resurection having hid/eaten the body. Spread the whole thing by word of mouth, adding to the story a little at each telling, and LO a religion is born.
Exactly. He didn't exist at all.
Apparently you took no notice of this:Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
As my signature implies, I will be leaving this evening. Goodbye A roxxor! I hope I can leave on friendly terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noogah
I prefer the latin spelling. After all, they were in that area during the time.
Also, I don't think anyone cares you're leaving. Good riddance imo.