![]()  | 
	
		Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. | 
| 
			
			 | 
		#11 | 
| 
			
			 Veteran Member 
			
			
			
			Join Date: Jul 2001 
				Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor 
				
				
					Posts: 4,035
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			The first difficulty in changing the date is the process of changing our records which would cost billions of dollars, given the variety of systems that base themselves on the Julian-Gregorian calendar and Exiguus' era.  The second difficulty is picking a better date that is well-established and culture-neutral.  Any particular man is out of the question.  In honor of the Unix computer internal clock, I would pick 1 Jan 1970.  I would also fix the numbering from ordinal (year 1 means "first year") to cardinal (year 0 is 1970, the "first year").  Years before 1970 would be negative numbers, such as –2013 for the year that Caesar died.  This would have the other positive benefit of preventing whines about how the first century isn't over until +101, as the last day of the first century is 31 Dec 99. 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	kind thoughts, Peter Kirby  | 
| 
		
 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	 | 
| 
			
			 | 
		#12 | 
| 
			
			 Veteran Member 
			
			
			
			Join Date: Oct 2004 
				Location: Bordeaux France 
				
				
					Posts: 2,796
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			You should try : 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	http://www.kokogiak.com/frc/default.asp It is a historical attempt, and it failed. But there is another related point. Christmas is a legal holiday, and the name "Christ" is inside the word... I met recently a moslem (man) who told me : "I don't like the idea of a christian holiday, since in France, there is no Aïd El Kebir, for instance". My answer was : "My feeling is that Christmas is a christian day only for those who want to go to church and attend the mass, but nobody is compelled. My interpretation is that December 25th is the (non-religious) children's day". Here, we agreed.  | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
| 
			
			 | 
		#13 | |
| 
			
			 Veteran Member 
			
			
			
			Join Date: Apr 2004 
				Location: France 
				
				
					Posts: 5,839
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 Quote: 
	
  | 
|
| 
		 | 
	
	
| 
			
			 | 
		#14 | 
| 
			
			 Regular Member 
			
			
			
			Join Date: Aug 2005 
				Location: TalkingTimeline.com 
				
				
					Posts: 151
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			Would somebody please make an annoucement that CE does not stand for "Christian Era"?
		 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	 | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
| 
			
			 | 
		#15 | |
| 
			
			 Veteran Member 
			
			
			
			Join Date: Jul 2001 
				Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor 
				
				
					Posts: 4,035
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 Quote: 
	
 kind thoughts, Peter Kirby  | 
|
| 
		
 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	 | 
| 
			
			 | 
		#16 | |
| 
			
			 Regular Member 
			
			
			
			Join Date: Aug 2005 
				Location: TalkingTimeline.com 
				
				
					Posts: 151
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 Quote: 
	
 Really? Well, I learn something new everyday.  | 
|
| 
		 | 
	
	
| 
			
			 | 
		#17 | 
| 
			
			 Veteran Member 
			
			
			
			Join Date: Oct 2004 
				Location: Bordeaux France 
				
				
					Posts: 2,796
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			I understand that CE is "Common Era", of course common era in Christian countries, but also in India, China, Japan, and perhaps elsewhere. 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era  | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
| 
			
			 | 
		#18 | 
| 
			
			 Veteran Member 
			
			
			
			Join Date: Oct 2004 
				Location: Bordeaux France 
				
				
					Posts: 2,796
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			And if you don't like the ambiguity of CE, you could use an old formula "Vulgar Era" instead of CE !  
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	 
		 | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
| 
			
			 | 
		#19 | 
| 
			
			 Veteran Member 
			
			
			
			Join Date: Feb 2005 
				Location: Hawaii 
				
				
					Posts: 6,629
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			Any change is going to face problems.  In fact, change may be impossible.  At least that's what one Christian theist implied on another thread when he said--as proof of the divinity of Jesus Christ--that: 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	"time itself has been rearranged around his birth (AD, BC)"  | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
| 
			
			 | 
		#20 | 
| 
			
			 Veteran Member 
			
			
			
			Join Date: Oct 2004 
				Location: Bordeaux France 
				
				
					Posts: 2,796
				 
				
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			Some people say that Jesus was born in 4 BC (before Christ), because Dyonisius Exiguus made a computation error... 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	So Julius Caesar was born in 4 before Julius Caesar.  
		 | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread | 
		
  |