1997-2003

Princess Alice · 2012-10-08 05:13:49

It's a pleasant range of dates, don't you think?

Anonus · 2012-10-08 05:14:39

Well, yes, but 1997-2002 sounds nicer, or 1997-2004.

Princess Alice · 2012-10-08 05:18:55

You think so?

Anonus · 2012-10-08 05:19:55

Yes.

Princess Alice · 2012-10-08 05:22:00

Huh. I always thought "2003" was a pleasant number, but "2002" is a real contender. Helps that the latter is a palindrome.

KJI · 2012-10-08 11:20:11

I prefer 1996-2002. Those are both good years.

Imipolex G · 2012-10-08 12:29:15

1988-1994

Misery · 2012-10-08 12:30:51

1980-2003

Sredni Vashtar · 2012-10-09 01:41:13

1991-2002

criminalscum · 2012-10-09 02:31:09

I see you're completely forgetting what happened in 2001, Hitler.

Justice4243 · 2012-10-09 02:46:23

ROBO-HITLER:

Gelzo · 2012-10-09 02:59:01

What the fuck you guys.

Justice4243 · 2012-10-09 03:03:09

Gelzo said:
What the fuck you guys.

Princess Alice · 2012-10-09 03:05:03

Sredni Vashtar said:
1991-2002

This one might have to win just because both years are palindromes

Sredni Vashtar · 2012-10-09 06:58:09

^ Exactly.

Gelzo · 2012-10-09 07:03:37

Anyone else think it's ridiculous that our system for numbering years is centered on an event that has weak historical grounding?

Sredni Vashtar · 2012-10-09 07:05:35

It is.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-10-09 07:05:45

"Ridiculous" how?

It's been used for a very long time, and changing it now would strike me as an exercise in pedantics on a grand scale.

Also, Jesus' birth is pretty generally agreed to have happened, we just don't know when precisely (I've heard everywhere from 15BC to 30AD). Unless that's what you meant by weak historical grounding.

Also that has quite little to do with this thread.

Sredni Vashtar · 2012-10-09 07:07:24

Super Läzuli said:
Also, Jesus' birth is pretty generally agreed to have happened, we just don't know when precisely (I've heard everywhere from 15BC to 30AD). Unless that's what you meant by weak historical grounding.

Um, this is what he meant...

Salix Babylonika · 2012-10-09 07:10:30

Well that's not what I thought he meant.

There are a surprising amount of people who believe Jesus never existed, my fault for assuming.

Anyway, I'm going to bed. So goodnight.

Gelzo · 2012-10-09 07:34:00

^^That's a part of what I meant. Not all of it though.

Super Läzuli said:
Also, Jesus' birth is pretty generally agreed to have happened, we just don't know when precisely (I've heard everywhere from 15BC to 30AD). Unless that's what you meant by weak historical grounding.

Among theologists and people who haven't investigated the issue. Also, general consensus =/= fact.

I don't want to try to be the big atheist asshole about this. A lot of religion is based on faith over evidence or reinterpretation of holy text as metaphor, so it shouldn't be a huge deal to point out that the evidence is weak.

I'll concede the point that the tradition makes it handy. Any other sort of numbering system would be just about as arbitrary anyway.

Super Läzuli said:
Also that has quite little to do with this thread.

Oh shit, better stay on topic.

lee4hmz · 2012-10-09 11:29:32

I always liked 1987-1992, even though all but the last 12 months of that wasn't really a good time for me personally.

King_Friday · 2012-10-09 12:48:02

I'd personally like to erase the 80s out of my memory just for being one of, if not THE worst decade for music.

I vote 1991-2002 also.

Justice4243 · 2012-10-09 15:34:39

Among theologists and people who haven't investigated the issue.

I don't think this is even remotely close to true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.^[9]^[10]^[11]

Also, general consensus =/= fact.

This doesn't really seem like useful rhetoric either. I mean, if you're not going to accept the general consensus of experts on something, what metric are you going to accept anything on? While I agree the even the most accepted of facts should always be approached with an open mind to correct potential errors as new evidence arises, rejecting something outright despite general consensus seem like it would interfere with arriving to correct conclusions. Unless, you just meant the population in general. Which is true, of course. But this is not really a good example of that.

NOW, that aside, the exact start data is probably off, by a bit. And even modern historians of the classical era can't pin down an exact date. There's definitively been some attempt in modern times to sort of distance the use of years from their religious origins by using "Common Era" in place of "A.D." and "Before Common Era" in place of B.C.

Justice4243 · 2012-10-09 15:34:48

As for why we actually use it, I guess we can blame highly influential people of the past for having their empire adopt it and then the influence spreading from there.

I'm not sure what would be a more appropriate measure that the world would agree on now, but given how wide-spread this numbering system is, changing it seems like an almost impossible undertaking. Also, there's probably little real motivation to do so unless the world gets a new Emperor at some point that declares we are to use different dates...in which case they'll probably insist on starting the new calendar with the day he/her/it began their rule.

Fascinating stuff.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-10-09 16:40:20

Among theologists and people who haven't investigated the issue. Also, general consensus =/= fact.

That's not even sort of true. There are very, very few respected historians who still push the theory that Jesus never existed. We even have some contemporary evidence in the form of the writings of the historian Josephus (whose name I am probably butchering).

Also, "general consensus" and "fact" are not synonyms, I will give you that, but with questions like this one where direct observation is almost impossible, I find it generally best to go with the majority opinion of the experts.

I don't want to try to be the big atheist asshole about this. A lot of religion is based on faith over evidence or reinterpretation of holy text as metaphor, so it shouldn't be a huge deal to point out that the evidence is weak.

Perhaps not, but the evidence isn't weak, in this case. No one's trying to say that he was the son of God, or even that there is a God to have a son. We're just saying he existed.

I'll concede the point that the tradition makes it handy. Any other sort of numbering system would be just about as arbitrary anyway.

Precisely. Just about the only point of origin that would perhaps not be arbitrary would be the dawn of human civilization, and we don't have a good date for that. So trying to tie it to that is a bit useless.

Oh shit, better stay on topic.

Kind of seemed totally out of the blue, is all.

Justice4243 · 2012-10-09 16:46:18

"No one's trying to say that he was the son of God, or even that there is a God to have a son. We're just saying he existed."

That's an important point, me thinks. The historicity of Jesus isn't dependent on him being a divine figure.

"Precisely. Just about the only point of origin that would perhaps not be arbitrary would be the dawn of human civilization, and we don't have a good date for that. So trying to tie it to that is a bit useless."

I was also thinking this...and even THEN I bet there's disagreement as to what exact event constitutes "the dawn of human civilization".

Ahh, fuck it. New calender system, people. Year zero is somewhere in between 1997 and 2003...

Look what you did, Central Avenue! You managed to up-heave the entire western world's calendar system with your careless thread.

LOOK WHAT YOU DID!

LOOK WHAT YOU DID!

Salix Babylonika · 2012-10-09 16:48:43

I would say it's the invention of agriculture. But I suppose it'd be hard to pin down an exact date for that.

Maybe the founding of Sumeria?

Justice4243 · 2012-10-09 16:53:30

"Maybe the founding of Sumeria?"

I'd agree to that, at least it's a date we could conceivably pin down at some point. Or rather, a date where you could probably point at an event and say "There, THAT'S when Sumeria was founded".

Maybe once time machines are built around 115-121 A.T.A.P.B.C.A (Arbitrary Time accidentally picked by Central Avenue) we can sort out the mess we've found ourselves in now.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-10-09 16:57:14

Yea, I feel Sumer/Sumeria is historically important, being the first state and all.

As far as we know, anyway. I think people have suggested that some civilization in India may have preceded it, but we can't decipher their writing enough to know.

Tachyon · 2012-10-09 17:00:49

First state ≠ start of civilization, not by a long shot. Çatalhöyük is considerably older than Sumer, though admittedly less obviously significant.

Justice4243 · 2012-10-09 17:02:37

Heh:

"Hey guys! Remember when we used the time machine to figure out when Sumeria was established and we spent centuries revamping our calendar system!"

"What kind of question is that? Of COURSE we all remember, millions died in the great Calendar wars! The greatest war in Human history since the beginning of Sumeria!"

"Well, funny you should mention that. We just went back and time and found that the first human civilization began in INDIA several centuries prior! I already submitted the request to change the calendars and sent out a press release."

...

Salix Babylonika · 2012-10-09 17:03:41

Obviously not, but it's probably the oldest thing that could be pinned down as historically significant.

Before that we stop being so certain about who existed when, and prior civilizations were generally restricted to a single city, two or three at the most. So I'd argue Sumer would make a good starting point, being the spiritual ancestor of every nation in existence today because of its status as the first.

Tachyon · 2012-10-09 17:04:34

^^ Fuck this. I say we start counting from the K-T extinction onwards.

^ I think that's debatable, even setting aside the uncertainty as to whether it even was the first.

Aliroz · 2012-10-09 17:04:35

1995-2004

Very bad, very very bad bad.

^^ Good idea, Lazuli.

Justice4243 · 2012-10-09 17:04:44

Fouria G said:
First state ≠ start of civilization, not by a long shot. Çatalhöyük is considerably older than Sumer, though admittedly less obviously significant.

See, this is what I was talking about. Even with precise dates it's going to be near impossible for everyone to agree on WHICH extremely important event in history should be the "chosen one".

Makes for interesting conversation, though.

Justice4243 · 2012-10-09 17:05:50

Fouria G said:
Fuck this. I say we start counting from the K-T extinction onwards.

Our history begins with the death of a sizable portion of the earthly populace.

It's kinda poetic, really.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-10-09 17:07:33

HISTORY NOW BEGINS WITH THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE

HAPPY YEAR FIFTEEN BILLION BITCHES

Justice4243 · 2012-10-09 17:10:58

"I'm sorry sir, you forgot a zero when you filled out your 10 page application. I'm afraid you'll have to fill it out again. We can't have an application that's dated ten billion years in the past."

Tachyon · 2012-10-09 17:19:57

Maybe we're going in the wrong direction. If we want precision, we need to start counting from a more recent event.

In high school English textbooks there's an odd tendency to divide everything into pre-1914 and post-1914. Anyone else notice that? Obviously the First World War is significant, but I never understood why it was treated like THE turning point in world literature.

Justice4243 · 2012-10-09 17:25:29

0_0

Well I don't think that would help our current situation any...

Publications of Jehovah's Witnesses teach that God's kingdom is a literal government in heaven, established in 1914,^[113] ruled by Jesus Christ and 144,000 humans raised to heaven.^[114] The kingdom is viewed as the means by which God will accomplish his original purpose for the earth,^[115]^[116] bringing about a world free of crime, sickness, death and poverty, and ultimately transforming the earth into a paradise.^[117] The kingdom is said to have been the focus of Jesus' ministry.^[118]

Still Mind = blown.

Tachyon · 2012-10-09 17:42:10

So I'm going to just go ahead and assume a great big conspiracy in some way involving the Jehovah's Witnesses, the publishers of high school textbooks and Gavrilo Princip.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-10-09 17:44:27

Sounds good to me.

Unrelatedly, I think that 1973-2006 is a good range of dates.

Justice4243 · 2012-10-09 17:46:07

HaHA! We figured it out

Heapers: 1

Shadowy Jehovah's Witnesses, cabal of high school textbook publishers, and Austrian-Hungarian Assassins league: 0

ProfessorGator · 2012-10-09 17:46:55

Wasn't Gavrilo Princip not particularly competent as an assassin, though? At least, that's what I've heard from a few people.

Justice4243 · 2012-10-09 17:50:58

The whole assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand, while potentially well thought out, was not well executed.

It seemed partially lucky on the part of the assassins that it was successful at all.

...Though, that might just be what the Jehovah Witnesses WANT us to believe to cover up the conspiracy we just blew right open!

Gelzo · 2012-10-09 17:55:22

Yeah guys, I read Wikipedia too when I was checking this out. I still found that it was more supportive of the opinion that there's an insufficient amount of evidence to support the historicity of Jesus. There's a lack of primary sources and of non-Christian sources to base claims of his existence on. And there's records of priests tampering with the books.

I simply don't trust someone who believes in the religion that they study to give an unbiased opinion regarding whether events in their holy texts happened, so if the best evidence I have is that a majority of scholars of Christian history say that Jesus existed, I'm not going to be convinced.

That's not to say that I don't realize that there are secular historians that posit his historicity, but there are also those that argue against it. I'm of the opinion that there's a good chance that a significant number of the former are pressured by their colleagues to not make waves. Though, I'm sure there are some of those of the latter that would be biased by the desire to convince people that there's less reason to believe these stories.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-10-09 17:57:32

Obā-san · 2012-10-09 18:02:17

Compared to other dudes who lived during that period, we have waaay more evidence that jeebus existed.

Obā-san · 2012-10-09 18:02:43

Though it doesn't really matter either way.

Justice4243 · 2012-10-09 18:10:22

"I still found that it was more supportive of the opinion that there's an insufficient amount of evidence to support the historicity of Jesus. "

That seems almost completely contrary to what I posted out of Wikipedia. I mean, I guess you're free to interpret the data as you want, but I'm certainly not getting a vibe from the article that suggests that it's mostly just "Christian" historians who think he existed. Heck, the majority of the sources from that snippet I posted above seem to be from non-Christian sources.

1997-2003

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories