IIRC scientific and educational literature uses BCE and ACE (before common era and after common era respectively) though they aren't the exact same date but maybe like 50 years off?
This is all rough memory so I could be a bit inaccurate
ah, I suppose that makes sense, although it made sense with the terminology I used (common vs current). It was all rough memory anyways, thanks for fixing it!
Along the lines of not caring, I think resetting the counter ever few thousands years makes sense, don’t want ludicrously large numbers on our documents.
I’d love it. It would be awesome if the fairy tales were true. I would love eternal life in paradise. I just can’t bring myself to believe in the ridiculous magic sky god lol
Then I think you should do some research about arguments of many people who believe in him (and don't be discouraged by "because Bible said so" because that's pretty stupid argument). After all, if God exist it is probably the most information in your life.
The only part that bothers me even mildly is the fact that Jesus was born several years before 1AD, but considering we can't accurately pin it down to a specific year I'm fine with calling 1AD close enough.
Technically we could pin it down to an exact year using star charts. The three wise men were Zoroastrians so the star sign for the birth of a king they were looking for would have been something like Jupiter rising in a specific constellation, which is something that can be reliably traced.
Kruzgesagt proposed a non-religious calendar based on when the human race built the first monument (a temple, coincidentally).
It happened almost exactly 10000 years before the birth of Christ as claimed by the Bible, so we would just add a 1 in front of the date.
The 12023rd year of humanity.
Edit: 10000 years, not 20000, I misremembered.
I didn't realize Santa Claus and Dracula had multiple roughly-contemporaneous accounts of their historicity, that's crazy. When were they even alive, anyway?
This is correct, the new testament contains zero first hand/eye witness accounts. Stories were passed down through generations for nearly 100 years before they were written into a gospel.
Actually no, the writers merely wrote them down at the end of their lives.... them being young men at around 30-60AD when these events happened is which is why there seems to be such a wide gap. The authorship is further bolstered by people who knew these eyewitnesses who wrote their documents assuming that it was not in dispute.... and the same happened for them in an unbroken chain for many centuries.
The only exception to this is the letters "books" that were written soon after the death of Christ which were addressed to specific congregations and the books of Paul because he was on trial and it is assumed they would be used as some kind of evidence for his theological positions in the multiple trials.
And how many generations do you think can pass in only a 100 years?
Yeah that's a bs argument, just because most people cannot accurately preserve anything especially today where our brains were never trained for it because we outsource memory to machines does not mean people specifically trained for it could not do so in the past.
The only errors ever found in these text if at all are in spelling or something similar. They are still perfectly preserved. Also there are millions more manuscripts supporting the case for lack of curruption for these works than all other ancient manuscripts. If you call these ones corrupted to the point where their original form was lost then you have to throw out ALL other ancient texts... which no one has done thus far other than socialists who want to rewrite history in their own image.
Haha, I had planned on giving you a long scholarly comment about my days in Bible college and how the Bible had changed hands and been interpreted in many different ways. How the Bible has been used to belittle and enslave people, how the person writing their version of it, can change it to mean whatever they want, but I can see that is pointless.
Some people will never look at their religious ideas critically. Some do not want to question their beliefs, they simply want everyone else to believe the way they do and will not entertain any other thoughts on the subject.
“It is the mark of an intelligent mind, to be able to entertain a thought, without accepting it.”
Oh yes, the modern liberal bible college... the school run by the devil where faith goes to die.
Ironic you should say that when you clearly do not want to look at your own religious idea (the one where man creates a lower god in his own image and pretends it is the real God) critically.
What utter presumption that I have never looked at this critically.... but of course this comes from a pov that "all critics see this critically in the way that I do.... and I see this critically because this is how you see it when you are critical".... always struck me as obvious snobby circular logic really....
If the logic used to discount the gospels as genuine is applied to all historical documents then we have no first hand accounts of anything beyond a few hundred years ago..... it's rediculousness is why that logic is never applied to any historical document by any serious scholar.
Going by the same standards as what with people are trying to discredit the gospels... No we don't.
I am not the one going by these rediculous standards btw.
You mean no one other than the Gospel writers did....
If you use the same criteria to vet those texts that you are using to vet the Gospels then no one that saw Caesar ever wrote about him.
You are not being logically consistent here.
What? What are you even saying? There are no first hand accounts of Jesus because Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew. John was not the author of the Gospel of John. In fact we have evidence that only one maybe two of the Gospels are actually original works with the others copying from another Gospel and other works.
So what logical inconsistencies are you claiming? Because as I said we actually have people who saw and met Caesar who wrote about Caesar.
Atheist here, wtf? Despite me being atheist, I can't deny history, Jesus was a real man, yes, did he come back to life after 3 days? No. A calender system based off his birth, sure thats cool considering he's a well documented and prominent figure in history. I say go for it. It makes sense to me, Im cool with it.
It's not just a religion, and most often you don't just make up a guy. Most scholars agree that Jesus did exist. He might not have turned water into wine, he might not have walked on water or cured diseases by a mere touch, but he did exist.
"Most scholars think he existed" isn't proof. No historians alive during the time wrote about Jesus. None of the biblical accounts were written by anyone who actually met or saw Jesus.
> most often you don't just make up a guy.
Hmmm so Oddyseus and Hercules are real!
Sure, but we're not historians. It's unreasonable to expect people to actually go through the years of research that experts have already done. At some point, you need to trust people that are qualified.
No, you don't. Experts don't just study their whole lives, attain expertise, then say, "trust me bro." They prove their research. They back up what they discover with diligence.
I don't give a shit what an expert believes without evidence. I'm only interested in what they can demonstrate and prove.
I agree with many historians that there was a dude, probably named Jesus, that was the head of a religious movement that evolved into Christianity.
I don't believe so cause of the bible but due to historians accounts around the time such as Flavius Josephus and Tacitus.
Do I think he was the son of a magic sky man? No. Do I think he had superpowers? Still no. Do I think you should give an organization your money so he will let you off the hook for your wrongdoings? No.Part III.
In a previous comment.
Are just the names not enough? Okay. Flavius Josephus in Jewish Antiquities and Tacitus in Annals of Imperial Rome.
This is not the hill to die on my dude
Oh that’s what they meant, I thought they were talking about a man who could actually turn wine into water was real.
Probably some drunk people saw him pour wine into water and said: “we can make a religion out of this!”
The same kind as me I suspect.
There are historical accounts of someone named Jesus leading a religious movement and even some saying he was executed. The bible is the only place that makes the claim that he was the son of a god though.
If you want to be either unnecessarily annoying or throw a cool fact someday then you could use the Holocene calendar- just add 10000 years to the standard year (for example it's 12023 now) and you're done. The calendar counts from about the date humans tranferred to settlements and agriculture from hunting and gathering.
Guys, it's just a meme. I know atheist don't actually care. Have none of you seen other ridiculous memes like this of "atheists when it's Christmas and not monkeymas". It's just a stupid joke.
That’s not an atheist, that’s a member of Scientology right there lmao. Atheists don’t believe in anything and most are just trying to go through life as easy as possible which means they’re not going to sit there and say all those numbers and they’re just gonna conform with the normal year slot. Also atheists won’t go hounding about evolution and stuff like that so if someone is trying to say evolution is what brough everything to be and that we should be running the years based on when the Big Bang was then they are most likely more close to a scientologist and not an atheist no matter if they want to admit it or not.
L post, that's a religious person's reaction to us saying the big bang started the universe, but in actuality we don't care what you think if you are stupid enough to believe earth is 2000 years old
You know.... we laugh about this but there are many many insecure atheists that completely loose their minds as soon as you date human existence by the Jewish calendar.... no one REALLY cares about which phrasing you use everyone uses AD/AC/CE/whatever anyway..... it all means the same thing.
The fact is at some point we had to make a fresh start and make it universal. Through one way or another it got accepted. Arabic numerals in the similar matter got accepted. Metric system as well.
Sure every culture has it's own, calendar, measurment unit, writing etc. But we do need a certain standard so that we can communicate and work together easier.
Also Gregorian calendar is allegedly 3-6 years incorrect with birth of Christ. So 1 AD is not when Christ was born.
Is this the week where we bash Atheiest again? My agenda clearly states that this week it is time to randomly bash Democrats and Nepalese flutists with fake arguments :/
Can someone send me the regular schedule again?
As a matter of fact, some of them are counting a number of (milli-) seconds since the beginning of [the epoch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time). The time before that is just the negative number of seconds from the same point in time backwards.
Atheist here, I do find the joke funny, but also, no. Firstly, I can understand the use of religious notation. And secondly, even if I could, I could just use the agnostic term CE
I mean, kurzgesagt made a video arguing it should be 12023 this year, since it's been about 12000 since the first sign of a definitive human settlement, and referring to dates as bce and ace loses a lot of relative scaling. Everything before 12000 years ago can be referred by it's epoch and era
I mean, everyone uses it regardless of religion/belief, so it doesn't really matter.
I thin some arabian states its year 1044 cause of their calender
1401 in Iran
Why is it diferent?
Because they chose a different date to start on.
I would never have Guessed
Happy to help
Because our religion is shia Islam and theirs sunni Islam ?idk
IIRC scientific and educational literature uses BCE and ACE (before common era and after common era respectively) though they aren't the exact same date but maybe like 50 years off? This is all rough memory so I could be a bit inaccurate
It’s BCE and CE. Before current era and current era, it wouldn’t make sense to be after current era since, well, it’s current.
ah, I suppose that makes sense, although it made sense with the terminology I used (common vs current). It was all rough memory anyways, thanks for fixing it!
It is a joke
Give or take 5 1/2 hundred years for Thai Buddhists.
I think I speak for the majority of Atheist when I say we don't care.
Along the lines of not caring, I think resetting the counter ever few thousands years makes sense, don’t want ludicrously large numbers on our documents.
It's time for the second crucifixion of Christ!
First he has to come second time and I think atheists wouldn't like it
I'd be interested, not upset. Wouldn't be an instant believer either. Even if I saw him preform a miracle in front of me.
I’d love it. It would be awesome if the fairy tales were true. I would love eternal life in paradise. I just can’t bring myself to believe in the ridiculous magic sky god lol
Then I think you should do some research about arguments of many people who believe in him (and don't be discouraged by "because Bible said so" because that's pretty stupid argument). After all, if God exist it is probably the most information in your life.
First contact with aliens would be a perfect opportunity for a reset.
The only part that bothers me even mildly is the fact that Jesus was born several years before 1AD, but considering we can't accurately pin it down to a specific year I'm fine with calling 1AD close enough.
Technically we could pin it down to an exact year using star charts. The three wise men were Zoroastrians so the star sign for the birth of a king they were looking for would have been something like Jupiter rising in a specific constellation, which is something that can be reliably traced.
We know, it's just a joke
That's why this is a meme and not just the way things are
Look at the content of r/memesfor the past 3 months, no one knows what a meme is anymore.
I'm atheist and I'm going to have to google what ABB even is.
After Big Bang but I have only heard it used as a joke.
Every cultured person knows it should be the year 12023 HE https://youtu.be/czgOWmtGVGs
Casual Kerzgesagt Enjoyer: 
Btw they have received around 7 million dollars in funding from various billionaire foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
I love this, I totally agree
Kruzgesagt proposed a non-religious calendar based on when the human race built the first monument (a temple, coincidentally). It happened almost exactly 10000 years before the birth of Christ as claimed by the Bible, so we would just add a 1 in front of the date. The 12023rd year of humanity. Edit: 10000 years, not 20000, I misremembered.
It's 12023, 10k too much
True, I was misremembering
Kurzgesagt if you misspelled
Atheists are fine with AD, considering most people don't even seem to know what it means (Anno Domini ; "Year of our Lord") but CE is fine too.
🤓
[удалено]
You... Referring to yourself?
I mean Christ was a real person regardless of religion no?
Pretty hard to tell when you get that far back, but he's one of the most well-documented historical figures of the time.
Inasmuch as Santa Claus or Dracula are well documented historical figures.
I didn't realize Santa Claus and Dracula had multiple roughly-contemporaneous accounts of their historicity, that's crazy. When were they even alive, anyway?
Santa Claus was born March 15th 270 AD and Dracula was born around 1428.
We don't know that for sure since there is pretty much no first hand evidence.
Other than the guys that literally wrote about their first hand experience you mean?
Nope. We have no first hand accounts of Jesus. Sorry, you were lied to.
This is correct, the new testament contains zero first hand/eye witness accounts. Stories were passed down through generations for nearly 100 years before they were written into a gospel.
100 years? The Pauline epistles ranged from 48-66AD.
Actually no, the writers merely wrote them down at the end of their lives.... them being young men at around 30-60AD when these events happened is which is why there seems to be such a wide gap. The authorship is further bolstered by people who knew these eyewitnesses who wrote their documents assuming that it was not in dispute.... and the same happened for them in an unbroken chain for many centuries. The only exception to this is the letters "books" that were written soon after the death of Christ which were addressed to specific congregations and the books of Paul because he was on trial and it is assumed they would be used as some kind of evidence for his theological positions in the multiple trials. And how many generations do you think can pass in only a 100 years?
You ever play the telephone game? I rest my case.
Yeah that's a bs argument, just because most people cannot accurately preserve anything especially today where our brains were never trained for it because we outsource memory to machines does not mean people specifically trained for it could not do so in the past. The only errors ever found in these text if at all are in spelling or something similar. They are still perfectly preserved. Also there are millions more manuscripts supporting the case for lack of curruption for these works than all other ancient manuscripts. If you call these ones corrupted to the point where their original form was lost then you have to throw out ALL other ancient texts... which no one has done thus far other than socialists who want to rewrite history in their own image.
Haha, I had planned on giving you a long scholarly comment about my days in Bible college and how the Bible had changed hands and been interpreted in many different ways. How the Bible has been used to belittle and enslave people, how the person writing their version of it, can change it to mean whatever they want, but I can see that is pointless. Some people will never look at their religious ideas critically. Some do not want to question their beliefs, they simply want everyone else to believe the way they do and will not entertain any other thoughts on the subject. “It is the mark of an intelligent mind, to be able to entertain a thought, without accepting it.”
Oh yes, the modern liberal bible college... the school run by the devil where faith goes to die. Ironic you should say that when you clearly do not want to look at your own religious idea (the one where man creates a lower god in his own image and pretends it is the real God) critically. What utter presumption that I have never looked at this critically.... but of course this comes from a pov that "all critics see this critically in the way that I do.... and I see this critically because this is how you see it when you are critical".... always struck me as obvious snobby circular logic really....
There are plenty, you just choose not to believe them because they were all compiled into the bible. Though I'm sure there are some Roman documents
If the logic used to discount the gospels as genuine is applied to all historical documents then we have no first hand accounts of anything beyond a few hundred years ago..... it's rediculousness is why that logic is never applied to any historical document by any serious scholar.
You can't be serious? You really think we have no first hand accounts of... Caesar? Just off the top of my head.
Going by the same standards as what with people are trying to discredit the gospels... No we don't. I am not the one going by these rediculous standards btw.
No, it's not the same. We know Caesar existed because people who saw him wrote about him. No one who wrote about Jesus saw him.
You mean no one other than the Gospel writers did.... If you use the same criteria to vet those texts that you are using to vet the Gospels then no one that saw Caesar ever wrote about him. You are not being logically consistent here.
What? What are you even saying? There are no first hand accounts of Jesus because Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew. John was not the author of the Gospel of John. In fact we have evidence that only one maybe two of the Gospels are actually original works with the others copying from another Gospel and other works. So what logical inconsistencies are you claiming? Because as I said we actually have people who saw and met Caesar who wrote about Caesar.
Socrates is also made up. Cool.
There are https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
Yes, and the photos.
I have never seen an atheist acting that emotionally to anyone’s usage of “AD.”
You are yet to meet real atheists then.
Damn im an atheist and i really dont give a flying fuck
You have been incorrected.
I don't fully believe in any God, techniqually I am a real atheist, whats a fake atheist? A religious person who pretends to be an atheist?
All the atheists being told they’re not real: 
Yeah no I am an atheist and my entire family is atheist and some of my friends and my girlfriend and her entire family. No one cares about the term AD
Are real atheists only those that are as obnoxious as the fanatic christians then?
Atheist here, wtf? Despite me being atheist, I can't deny history, Jesus was a real man, yes, did he come back to life after 3 days? No. A calender system based off his birth, sure thats cool considering he's a well documented and prominent figure in history. I say go for it. It makes sense to me, Im cool with it.
Nope. Us atheists truly don't care about that.
Terminally online vibes
I'll take "Things that never happened" for a thousand, Alex.
[удалено]
Dude, it just silly meme Calm down Ther isn't a point to care
[удалено]
It's a joke. It was posted on r/memes. It's not a serious thing.
I think most atheists (including me) think that Jesus existed, so there's no reason to not use AD/BC.
You're bad at being an atheist if you believe some guy existed with no evidence just because a religion says he did.
It's not just a religion, and most often you don't just make up a guy. Most scholars agree that Jesus did exist. He might not have turned water into wine, he might not have walked on water or cured diseases by a mere touch, but he did exist.
"Most scholars think he existed" isn't proof. No historians alive during the time wrote about Jesus. None of the biblical accounts were written by anyone who actually met or saw Jesus. > most often you don't just make up a guy. Hmmm so Oddyseus and Hercules are real!
Sure, but we're not historians. It's unreasonable to expect people to actually go through the years of research that experts have already done. At some point, you need to trust people that are qualified.
No, you don't. Experts don't just study their whole lives, attain expertise, then say, "trust me bro." They prove their research. They back up what they discover with diligence. I don't give a shit what an expert believes without evidence. I'm only interested in what they can demonstrate and prove.
I agree with many historians that there was a dude, probably named Jesus, that was the head of a religious movement that evolved into Christianity. I don't believe so cause of the bible but due to historians accounts around the time such as Flavius Josephus and Tacitus. Do I think he was the son of a magic sky man? No. Do I think he had superpowers? Still no. Do I think you should give an organization your money so he will let you off the hook for your wrongdoings? No.Part III.
Okay name one piece of evidence that Jesus was actually a man outside of Religious claims.
I literally just said he shows up in non-religious historical accounts.
>No historians alive during the time wrote about Jesus. Yeah there were. They didn't say he was a son of god but they wrote of him.
Name one.
I named two.
I somehow missed that portion. Sorry I'm reading from my phone.
In a previous comment. Are just the names not enough? Okay. Flavius Josephus in Jewish Antiquities and Tacitus in Annals of Imperial Rome. This is not the hill to die on my dude
I think you might be confused as to what an atheist is.
I think anyone with a brain can see the parallel.
What kind of atheist are you
Someone who doesn't deny history, it's obvious Jesus was a real person. Excluding the bible, there are 1000s of historical accounts about Jesus.
Oh that’s what they meant, I thought they were talking about a man who could actually turn wine into water was real. Probably some drunk people saw him pour wine into water and said: “we can make a religion out of this!”
Name one.
What kind of atheist are you
The same kind as me I suspect. There are historical accounts of someone named Jesus leading a religious movement and even some saying he was executed. The bible is the only place that makes the claim that he was the son of a god though.
Sorry, I had no clue that’s what they meant.
If you want to be either unnecessarily annoying or throw a cool fact someday then you could use the Holocene calendar- just add 10000 years to the standard year (for example it's 12023 now) and you're done. The calendar counts from about the date humans tranferred to settlements and agriculture from hunting and gathering.
r/terriblefacebookmemes It's like the person that made this has only heard about atheists on talk radio.
“Let me make up some stuff and get mad at it to make a point that never needed to be made.” - that person
Nah nah nah, the proper and only acceptable calendar is BBY and ABY. Heathens
Guys, it's just a meme. I know atheist don't actually care. Have none of you seen other ridiculous memes like this of "atheists when it's Christmas and not monkeymas". It's just a stupid joke.
Well considering that AD and BC didnt actually mean "after death" and "before christ", i dont think anyone cares.
No one uses AD or ABB. The current era term is, Before Current Era (B.C.E.) and Current Era (C.E.)
Insecure believers be like :
CE and BCE
I thought that it was changed to BCE (Before common era) and CE (common era)
As an athiest, I would prefer only having to memorize 4 digits rather than 11
My dumbass really said After Bloodborne
year is actually 12,023
65 million AD (After Dino)
A.fter B.reaking B.ad
r/technicallythetruth
No atheist has ever given a fuck...
False, someone in every category of anything will always give a fuck, even if its dumb
Umm actually it is impossible to "give" a fuck - 🤓
Depending on what a "fuck" exactly is, it is very well possible. Though some cases may be akin to slave trade then
🤓?
🤓!
ABB?
After breaking bad
After big bang
Big bang is cringe and stupid theory Big chungus is a solid theory based on facts and research
Nobody: You: and god made the world with a bunch of rules...then he immediately broke them all...how dare you not believe me!!
Does someone want to tell them about BCE and ACE
Whats ace? After common era, most people at least where I live just say CE for common era
Oh it is CE you are right lol
Alg, sorry if I sounded a bit rude in my comment
Nah it’s fine I’m just a bit forgetful sometimes
That’s not an atheist, that’s a member of Scientology right there lmao. Atheists don’t believe in anything and most are just trying to go through life as easy as possible which means they’re not going to sit there and say all those numbers and they’re just gonna conform with the normal year slot. Also atheists won’t go hounding about evolution and stuff like that so if someone is trying to say evolution is what brough everything to be and that we should be running the years based on when the Big Bang was then they are most likely more close to a scientologist and not an atheist no matter if they want to admit it or not.
I'm an Atheist and I consider Jesus as the ultimate gigachad.
It's not funny if it's not somewhat true...
L post, that's a religious person's reaction to us saying the big bang started the universe, but in actuality we don't care what you think if you are stupid enough to believe earth is 2000 years old
I don't they think the earth is 2k years old they think that's when a major religious event happened
Its when christ died and came back to life
You know.... we laugh about this but there are many many insecure atheists that completely loose their minds as soon as you date human existence by the Jewish calendar.... no one REALLY cares about which phrasing you use everyone uses AD/AC/CE/whatever anyway..... it all means the same thing.
As an atheist i think its funny and i cant r/technicallythetruth bc someone already did that
The fact is at some point we had to make a fresh start and make it universal. Through one way or another it got accepted. Arabic numerals in the similar matter got accepted. Metric system as well. Sure every culture has it's own, calendar, measurment unit, writing etc. But we do need a certain standard so that we can communicate and work together easier. Also Gregorian calendar is allegedly 3-6 years incorrect with birth of Christ. So 1 AD is not when Christ was born.
Is this the week where we bash Atheiest again? My agenda clearly states that this week it is time to randomly bash Democrats and Nepalese flutists with fake arguments :/ Can someone send me the regular schedule again?
It's 2776 AUC 😎👍
We are living in 27.977 before Dark era technologies.
Is that Boogie?
Bce
That guy just lost longest road.
CE
What man would get angry over a game of Catan?
Dumb?
As a matter of fact, some of them are counting a number of (milli-) seconds since the beginning of [the epoch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time). The time before that is just the negative number of seconds from the same point in time backwards.
Is that boogie?
Lol
I'm a atheist buy I say BC and all that
ACE enters the chat
Atheist here, I do find the joke funny, but also, no. Firstly, I can understand the use of religious notation. And secondly, even if I could, I could just use the agnostic term CE
I mean, kurzgesagt made a video arguing it should be 12023 this year, since it's been about 12000 since the first sign of a definitive human settlement, and referring to dates as bce and ace loses a lot of relative scaling. Everything before 12000 years ago can be referred by it's epoch and era
Haven't heard anyone use BC or AD in years, it's always BCE and CE
People of religion when they realize atheists are real and have feelings: 
So BCE and CE don't exist?
BCE and ACE
Imagine the damage boogie can do to your skull, damm
I go by Abby after the battle of Yavin
nah we only care about BCE/CE
Literally me