Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "I REFUSE To Use BCE/CE And Here is Why" video.

@imankhandaker6103 "my lord"? Do you think I'm a Christian? You really love to build strawmen, don't you (other than cute pretending you were jocking on the "0 BC")? You didn't answer tough. It doesn't count if Christ is really born in 1 AD or not. Like it doesn't count if he really existed or not. The date was devised by Dionysius Exiguus (monk, and saint, and before him by Epiphanius of Salamis, saint, and Eusebius, saint) as the one of Christ's birth and nothing else. Do you gloss over that? You want to conveniently ignore it? Has Christ's birth nothing to do with religion? It's the name all that it counts? A calendar made by Christian saints based on Chris't year of birth is not religious to you?
3
@imankhandaker6103 And it's a false issue. The entire count of the years was based on a calculation of Christ's year of birth. So why the name is the problem, and not the entire calendar? Doesn't it reflect the religion of the inventors? What happened in year 1 that started the "current era"? The inauguration of the aqueduct of Aqua Alsienta? As I said, its because of laziness. To really get rid of the religious origins of the calendar is too hard. Better pretend to do it. Better pretend that the names are the problem, and not the substance. Better pretend that using the name is worshipping, and using the calendar is not. You can name it whatever you want, until you don't require others to do the same. And, BTW, BC/AD is only in English. In Italian is AC/DC for example, in French is av. J.C. and ap. J.C. etc.
2
@imankhandaker6103 It doesn't exist "0 BC". Calendar pass from -1 to +1. It doesn't count if Christ is really born in 1 AD or not. Like it doesn't count if he really existed or not. The date was devised by Dionysius Exiguus (monk, and saint, and before him by Epiphanius of Salamis, saint, and Eusebius, saint) as the one of Christ's birth and nothing else. Do you gloss over that? You want to conveniently ignore it? Has Christ's birth nothing to do with religion? It's the name all that it counts? A calendar made by Christian saints based on Chris't year of birth is not religious to you?
2
@imankhandaker6103 No. Like it doesn't matter if he existed or not, as long as Christians believe id had. It doesn't matter when, or if, he was born, as long as who made the calendar believed he was born in 1 AD. Year one is year one because, for who made the calendar, it was the year of Christ's birth, and that's the only reason. So, are you still going to pretend that a year count based on Christ's birth date is not religous?
2
@imankhandaker6103 So, since the entire calendar is religious, what's using CE instead of AD other than hypocrisy?
2
@imankhandaker6103 So, if the Bangladesh Observer has the dates in four calendars, what the Bengali cares about the use of CE instead of AD in English? There are somewhere pages where English mother language people cares about the dating systems of the other three, and want them to be changed? IE, I'm perfectly fine if people in Muslim countries want to start dating from the Egira. It's far more honest than changing only the name to the Gregorian calendar and pretending it has no more a religious origin.
2
@imankhandaker6103 And what does it change if only one of the calendar is Muslim? Did I ever say it was more than one? I don't need to guess, because I DON't CARE. That's the core of the matter. I don't care if people want to measure time since the birth of Christ or of Winnie The Pooh. as long as they say it's the time since the birth of Winnie The Poo that they are measuring. The question was different. "There are somewhere pages where English mother language people cares about the dating systems of the other three, and want them to be changed?"
2
@imankhandaker6103 The religiosity of the calendar is due to the belief of those who made it, not the reality of the religion. A calendar based on the birth of Quetzalcoatl is based on religion, Quetzalcoatl existing or not. It's really not that hard to understand. The existence of a religion is independent from the existence of the object of the religion. You can keep all the other bullshit of your post to yourself.
2
What annoys me the most infact is the lazyness of it all. You want to keep on using a year count based on the birth date of Christ, You want to keep on using a calendar devised by priests and imposed by a pope. BUT you want to pretend it to not have any more religious connotations by changing an acronym. Because you are lazy. Devise ANOTER event starting the "Current era", ANOTHER calendar, and try using it. Then we can talk about it.
1
@ChristopherCompagnon1AndOnly Not really. Mostly reformists had to fight AGAINST religious authorities to impose those concepts. Catholics and Protestants alike were perfectly fine with the concept of monarchs and nobles being not equal to the ordinary people. Rights were a legacy of the Roman law, and people, to maintain them, had to keep on fighting against religious authorities that always wanted to transform sins into punishable crimes.
1
@ChristopherCompagnon1AndOnly The good thing of philosophies is that they change. Being stoic, or whatever else they decided to be, didn't prevent to Romans to give rights to citizens and not citizens. Regardless of their genetics or the perfection of their bodies. After Christ we had to fight for two millennia against people that though they had a special truth, gave to them by God, that wanted for them to have the power to control every single aspect of every single man's life, from birth to death. And no, JC never said we are all equal. There isn't a single word in the gospel against slavery for example. All the people JC saved had been saved due to their own fait in him "Your faith has saved you". Right? All but one, the servant (the slave) of the Centurio. JC saves him because the Centurio asked him to. The faith of the slave had not role in it. Nor JC told to the Centurio "now free him". What the Church told to people for millennia is to suffer meekly the injustices in this world, to have a reward in the afterlife, not that we have to be equal HERE. And EVERY TIME someone tried to say that we had to be equal HERE, he had to fight AGAINST the Church to say it.
1
@ChristopherCompagnon1AndOnly No. Those that want to use BCE/CE, as said, are lazy. They want to use the calendar and dating as it is, only hiding their religious origin with a coat of paint.
1
@grimmspectrum1547 Not even close. 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 46 seconds, is the time Sun takes to return in the same position in the sky. Those almost six adjunctive hours are the reason we add one day every 4 years. Those 11 minutes and 14 seconds less than 6 hours are the reason one leap year is skipped every 100 years, unless the year is divisible for 400. What's arbitrary, and it's a legacy of the Julian calendar, is the relative duration of the months. There's no reason February has 28 days (it's only that the Romans didn't like it, so they made it short). Calendar could have had 7 months of 30 days and 5 months of 31 days, or 12 moths of 30 days, with 5 intercalar days evenly inserted between the months during the year.
1
@grimmspectrum1547 You're hilarious. Other than not knowing how the Gregorian calendar works, you have also not idea of what's the purpose of a calendar. A 500 year single-day calendar is good for nothing in everyday use. it's like a 10.000 letters alphabet.
1
@grimmspectrum1547 You so know how the calendar works that you stated it should have 360 days, and 5 days had been added for religious reasons. 😂 Try to take an appointment on a 500 years, single-day calendar.😂 But Keep on showing your cluelessness, please. You are so funny!
1
@imankhandaker6103 Not only I know history far better than you, but you don't seem that great at understanding simple things either. As I already explained you (and as you repeatedly failed to grasp): "Like it doesn't matter if he existed or not, as long as Christians believe id had. It doesn't matter when, or if, he was born, as long as who made the calendar believed he was born in 1 AD. Year one is year one because, for who made the calendar, it was the year of Christ's birth, and that's the only reason. So, are you still going to pretend that a year count based on Christ's birth date is not religous?" But please, go on. Try again to impress me by saying that, if he existed, wasn't likely born in 1 AD, like I didn't know that since primary school. Maybe the next time I'll give you a pat on the head and say you are a clever boy (a lie, since you even believed in "year 0", but white lies are allowed for making not particular bright people happy).
1