• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

It is time theists, give it up.

Polar Bum said:
Interesting....you went from Calendars, to metrics, to the form of our currency in your rant against the US....is there something you really want to get off your chest?

This whole screed has a familiar flavor......things that in no way impact you, but you are carrying on like a child denied a treat....do you need to talk?
Click to expand...

It's not a rant against the us to point out a few facts about the us is it?

And the childishness is surely on your part that you take such a petulant attitude towards a simple proposition of change.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You just said it was broke so that means, since the whole world uses that calendar... that it is already a worry.

Time stopped in Brazil and is moving back wards around the Poles... the calendar being broken also seemed to suspend gravity on my street. This is alarming. Your suggestion that we switch to an American Calendar system might save us all...
Click to expand...

Whjere the **** did this "must" come from? I said proposal not demand.
 
soylentgreen said:
Did the year 2000 have you worried?
Click to expand...

Soooo lecture time:

The reason that Y2K didn't end up being the disaster people thought it was due to the diligence and hard work of numerous teams, led both in private and by various govt's, including a UN task force. $300bn was spent on Y2K compliance protocols and contrary to popular belief, that money and effort was not wasted. The fact that Y2K wasn't a disaster is testament to the hard work by those teams. The people who spread the idea that the Y2K bug was overblown were people with very little technical expertise.

Furthermore, there are far more critical computer systems these days than there were in 2000. Not to mention, whilst computer systems these days can easily handle the changeover of one millenium to the next, I'm pretty sure they would not hold up well to something like changing the year itself. For example, many systems use unix time which counts the number of seconds elapsed since Jan 1 1970 (current unix time is ~1505842587 - the number will be bigger by the time you read this). If the year suddenly became < 1970 then how do you count UNIX time?

Depending on how the time change is implemented it would likely screw up a lot of stuff. A system on UNIX time is not affected by going from one millenium to another (In UNIX time, Y2K meant the clocks went from 946684799 -> 946684800 - which isn't any different from any other second increment in time) but such a system would be affected if the year suddenly became 271. Many UUIDS (unique identifiers) are used as keys in database's around the world. Version 1 UUID's use a version of UNIX time in their calculation. You change those UNIX times and suddenly databases around the world start to break.

tl;dr I wasn't a programmer then (I was 8) so Y2K didn't worry me but I am now and the suggestion in OP gives me nightmares.
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
Soooo lecture time:

The reason that Y2K didn't end up being the disaster people thought it was due to the diligence and hard work of numerous teams, led both in private and by various govt's, including a UN task force. $300bn was spent on Y2K compliance protocols and contrary to popular belief, that money and effort was not wasted. The fact that Y2K wasn't a disaster is testament to the hard work by those teams. The people who spread the idea that the Y2K bug was overblown were people with very little technical expertise.

Furthermore, there are far more critical computer systems these days than there were in 2000. Not to mention, whilst computer systems these days can easily handle the changeover of one millenium to the next, I'm pretty sure they would not hold up well to something like changing the year itself. For example, many systems use unix time which counts the number of seconds elapsed since Jan 1 1970 (current unix time is ~1505842587 - the number will be bigger by the time you read this). If the year suddenly became < 1970 then how do you count UNIX time?

Depending on how the time change is implemented it would likely screw up a lot of stuff. A system on UNIX time is not affected by going from one millenium to another (In UNIX time, Y2K meant the clocks went from 946684799 -> 946684800 - which isn't any different from any other second increment in time) but such a system would be affected if the year suddenly became 271. Many UUIDS (unique identifiers) are used as keys in database's around the world. Version 1 UUID's use a version of UNIX time in their calculation. You change those UNIX times and suddenly databases around the world start to break.

tl;dr I wasn't a programmer then (I was 8) so Y2K didn't worry me but I am now and the suggestion in OP gives me nightmares.
Click to expand...

I worked in IT in 1999, so I know the vast numbers of hours that were devoted to projects to fix Y2K bugs. Hundreds of man hours were spent making test systems, and ipling them at dec 31st, and other signifigent dates to find out the problems.

Two of my favorite Y2K bugs that got overlooked.

In 1999, the model 2000 cars came out. The state of Vermont issued car titles for the new year 2000 cars, calling them 'horseless buggies'

IN 2016, a reminder letter got generated to a whole bunch of people who would have been turning 116 years old if they were alive to remind them that when they turn 18, they will have to be registered for the draft.
 
soylentgreen said:
Did the year 2000 have you worried?
Click to expand...

Not at all... but i benefitted from having insider information from a person who knew the problem was solved months and months prior to Y2K.
 
RAMOSS said:
I worked in IT in 1999, so I know the vast numbers of hours that were devoted to projects to fix Y2K bugs. Hundreds of man hours were spent making test systems, and ipling them at dec 31st, and other signifigent dates to find out the problems.

Two of my favorite Y2K bugs that got overlooked.

In 1999, the model 2000 cars came out. The state of Vermont issued car titles for the new year 2000 cars, calling them 'horseless buggies'

IN 2016, a reminder letter got generated to a whole bunch of people who would have been turning 116 years old if they were alive to remind them that when they turn 18, they will have to be registered for the draft.
Click to expand...

Nice, yeah I remember listening to a Ted talk or something from someone who was a part of the Y2K anticipation efforts, and he spoke about he hates when people dismiss it as not a big deal. It wasn't a big deal because of the hard work many people did in preparing for it.

It's also interesting to see how some of the issues only arise way after the fact, like that draft. letter one. And I mean, even now, if you go into Excel now and type in 1/1/29 it'll come up as 1 Jan 2029, but if you type in 1/1/30 you won't get 1 Jan 2030.
 
Nilly said:
Nice, yeah I remember listening to a Ted talk or something from someone who was a part of the Y2K anticipation efforts, and he spoke about he hates when people dismiss it as not a big deal. It wasn't a big deal because of the hard work many people did in preparing for it.

It's also interesting to see how some of the issues only arise way after the fact, like that draft. letter one. And I mean, even now, if you go into Excel now and type in 1/1/29 it'll come up as 1 Jan 2029, but if you type in 1/1/30 you won't get 1 Jan 2030.
Click to expand...

Since I lived it, well, I will totally agree with that.

I will also say that the reason Irma didn't do more damage was the building and zoning laws put into place in Florida after Hurricane Andrew. It's human nature to say 'Oh, that wasn't bad,', and want to save money by loosening the laws. That would be a mistake.
 
RAMOSS said:
Since I lived it, well, I will totally agree with that.

I will also say that the reason Irma didn't do more damage was the building and zoning laws put into place in Florida after Hurricane Andrew. It's human nature to say 'Oh, that wasn't bad,', and want to save money by loosening the laws. That would be a mistake.
Click to expand...

A: "Well what about the Ozone layer! You were all panicking about that and it's doing fine now!!!"

B: "Yeah because we took steps to address the issue and banned CFC's you dumbass."

I'm sure there must be a specific name for the fallacy.
 
Nilly said:
A: "Well what about the Ozone layer! You were all panicking about that and it's doing fine now!!!"

B: "Yeah because we took steps to address the issue and banned CFC's you dumbass."

I'm sure there must be a specific name for the fallacy.
Click to expand...

I will make a prediction. IF the technology gets ahead of the curve, and the whole greenhouse gasses thing can be reversed and avoided, you will get a bunch of people claiming that it had nothing to do with the new technology.
 
soylentgreen said:
It's not a rant against the us to point out a few facts about the us is it?

And the childishness is surely on your part that you take such a petulant attitude towards a simple proposition of change.
Click to expand...


Petulance? LOL No...anything but. Please continue though....this is the best way to start my morning! :lamo

But don't let that stop you, follow your dreams little buddy.....write those politicians and sway them to the brilliance of your "proposal".

You really need to think big; lets start soylents new calendar with a really auspicious date....we need something grand to kick off this superior dating system.

Oh, I know....we can start the new historical dating system with your birthdate! Why not use one arbitrary date in place of another??

I know, I know......our dating system has only worked for 2,017 years...but don't let that stop you....follow your destiny, lets pull these primitive heathens up by the bootstraps and usher them into the new era with all the associated benefits of becoming an enlightened people.

So....when should I anticipate ordering the new soylent calendar to beat the Christmas rush?
 
soylentgreen said:
Proposing a change in calanders is not unique or an impossible idea. Western civilisation has gone frome hellenic to roman to julian to gregorian.
We have had the calander we now use in effect to measure over two thousand years now. Given a starting point to a religion that no longer controls the thinking of modern man. That of the birth of christ and is called anno domini meaning in the year of our lord.

However this is archaic and based on a superstition and i argue that it is about time it was replaced with somethin contemporary and more fitting to what now has a greater influence. And what could be more fitting that america itself.

So i propose that instead of this being the year 2018 anno domini instead the calander once again should be changed and this should instead be the year 241 anno americae.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the Gregorian Calendar (named after a Pope I think) was commissioned by the Catholic Church, the Holy See in Vatican City, to correct inaccuracies (astronomical I think) that accumulated over time with the old Julian Calendar.

As for objections to using the term abbreviated "AD," you seem to be showing you haven't attended university or at least not a public university, because use of the abbreviation "CE" and "BCE" are more common place.

So, what is your gripe? Just use the terms "CE" (Common Era) and "BCE" (Before Common Era).
 
FastPace said:
My understanding is that the Gregorian Calendar (named after a Pope I think) was commissioned by the Catholic Church, the Holy See in Vatican City, to correct inaccuracies (astronomical I think) that accumulated over time with the old Julian Calendar.

As for objections to using the term abbreviated "AD," you seem to be showing you haven't attended university or at least not a public university, because use of the abbreviation "CE" and "BCE" are more common place.

So, what is your gripe? Just use the terms "CE" (Common Era) and "BCE" (Before Common Era).
Click to expand...

Well....according to soylent, its an inferior system. BC/AD/CE/BCE does not seem to make him happy.

I mean, our current system of marking time and dates is soooooo shoddy, we are actually going to have to add an extra hour to our day...in about, oh, two million centuries?

Don't know how anyone can live with such a huge margin of error...we even have a surplus day every four years. carelessness I say.
 
FastPace said:
My understanding is that the Gregorian Calendar (named after a Pope I think) was commissioned by the Catholic Church, the Holy See in Vatican City, to correct inaccuracies (astronomical I think) that accumulated over time with the old Julian Calendar.

As for objections to using the term abbreviated "AD," you seem to be showing you haven't attended university or at least not a public university, because use of the abbreviation "CE" and "BCE" are more common place.

So, what is your gripe? Just use the terms "CE" (Common Era) and "BCE" (Before Common Era).
Click to expand...

As i have sid, beause it is a sop. Regardless of the acronym used it is still based on the existence of a creature that never existed.
 
soylentgreen said:
As i have sid, beause it is a sop. Regardless of the acronym used it is still based on the existence of a creature that never existed.
Click to expand...

I hate when people use all sorts of acronyms because in their minds they are certain everyone knows what they mean or they should know what they mean. Maybe that is clear with your more frequently used acronyms like USA and AD or CE or specifically for those that live in the the United States maybe even "POTUS" to some lesser degree. And this is not just my personal thing, by journalistic practice you are only supposed to use acronyms (at least less common ones) in paragraphs after a previous paragraph in which you spell the whole phrase out that the acronym represents. The reason being is the journalist/editors are not supposed to just assume every reader knows what the acronym used means.

So, what the hell does "sop" or "SOP" mean? :mad:




Anyways... it's fine if you subscribe to a faith system that Jesus was never a historical figure that actually lived on earth and had numerous followers from the 12 Apostles to many other disciples. That a faith you have and at best you can claim it is derived from evidence. But evidence is not proof. Otherwise we would not have innocent people in American prisons nor would science have to correct errors it has made from taxonomical classifications to astronomical observations.

Historical writing throughout the long history of mankind never had the "scientific" praxis or academic rigor (which includes citing sources and composing a bibliography) that is demanded and usually required of professional historians today. The lack of extra Biblical text making reference to the Jesus Christians followed is only evidence for Jesus habing been a fictional person that never existed. But ample oral history contradicts this. Consider written history as heterosexuality today and oral history as homosexuality today. Or better yet among ancient man consider it in reverse. Just because you have a preference for one does not prove the non-existence of the other.

Professor Jordan Peterson has even said that from studies done it is now known that oral histories can be passed down fairly accurately for thousands of years. Furthermore, the requirement for memorizing long histories and tales, even set to music, that evidence indicates ancient man had a memorization capability so superior to ours that it would baffle us today.

You know... there were many Early Christian followers (often under persecution) who actually saw and spoke with both the 11 remaining (original) Apostles and the Blessed Holy Mother of Jesus. The Holy Mother having lived if I remember correctly both in Jerusalem (short period) and for the remainder of her life in Ephesus (I think it was). Early followers, both men and women, met with her and the Apostles used to occasionally come visit her. All the original remaining 11 Apostles but perhaps the Apostle John died for their belief in another man whom they believed the Son of God.

In contrast to a Jewish storyteller centuries later who claimed to be the Messiah but when faced with death converted to Islam. Most the Jewish world believed at the time that he in fact was what Christians claim Jesus was. But whose story endured? Endured by the blood of the martyrs?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi

Sabbatai Zevi (Hebrew: שַׁבְּתַי צְבִי‎, other spellings include Sabbatai Ẓevi, Shabbetai Ẓevi, Shabbeṯāy Ṣeḇī, Sabbatai Sevi, Shabsai Tzvi, and Sabetay Sevi in Turkish) (August 1, 1626 – c. September 17, 1676[1]) was a Sephardic ordained Rabbi, though of Romaniote origin[2][3] and a kabbalist, active throughout the Ottoman Empire, who claimed to be the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. He was the founder of the Sabbatean movement.

In February 1666, upon arriving in Constantinople, Sabbatai was imprisoned on the order of the grand vizier Ahmed Köprülü; in September of that same year, after being moved from different prisons around the capital to Adrianople (the imperial court's seat) for judgement on accusations of fomenting sedition, Sabbatai was given by Köprülü, in the name of the Sultan Mehmed IV, the choice of either facing death by some type of ordeal, or of converting to Islam. Sabbatai seems to have chosen the latter by donning from then on a Turkish turban. He was then also rewarded by the heads of the Ottoman state with a generous pension for his compliance with their political and religious plans.[4] Some of his followers also converted to Islam—about 300 families who were known as the Dönmeh (converts).[5]
Click to expand...



Islam it may be noted, also believes Jesus existed, they claim him as one of their prophets. From an historical aspect it is not just Christians. It would be Politically Incorrect of you to not celebrate an Islam belief.
 
Roman Empire believed Jesus existed. Empowered a cult that claimed Jesus didn't just exist .... but was God. Funny thing for a bunch of Roman pagans to do.
And, as previous notes, Mohammed back in 600+ AD was sure Jesus existed.

Hey, but the modern Atheist knows all.
 
soylentgreen said:
Proposing a change in calanders is not unique or an impossible idea. Western civilisation has gone frome hellenic to roman to julian to gregorian.
We have had the calander we now use in effect to measure over two thousand years now. Given a starting point to a religion that no longer controls the thinking of modern man. That of the birth of christ and is called anno domini meaning in the year of our lord.

However this is archaic and based on a superstition and i argue that it is about time it was replaced with somethin contemporary and more fitting to what now has a greater influence. And what could be more fitting that america itself.

So i propose that instead of this being the year 2018 anno domini instead the calander once again should be changed and this should instead be the year 241 anno americae.
Click to expand...

That is a solution looking for a problem.
 
FastPace said:
I hate when people use all sorts of acronyms because in their minds they are certain everyone knows what they mean or they should know what they mean. Maybe that is clear with your more frequently used acronyms like USA and AD or CE or specifically for those that live in the the United States maybe even "POTUS" to some lesser degree. And this is not just my personal thing, by journalistic practice you are only supposed to use acronyms (at least less common ones) in paragraphs after a previous paragraph in which you spell the whole phrase out that the acronym represents. The reason being is the journalist/editors are not supposed to just assume every reader knows what the acronym used means.

So, what the hell does "sop" or "SOP" mean? :mad:
Click to expand...
It is not an acronym. It is a word.
sop
sɒp/
noun
noun: sop; plural noun: sops

1.
a thing of no great value given or done as a concession to appease someone whose main concerns or demands are not being met.



Anyways... it's fine if you subscribe to a faith system that Jesus was never a historical figure that actually lived on earth and had numerous followers from the 12 Apostles to many other disciples. That a faith you have and at best you can claim it is derived from evidence. But evidence is not proof. Otherwise we would not have innocent people in American prisons nor would science have to correct errors it has made from taxonomical classifications to astronomical observations.

Historical writing throughout the long history of mankind never had the "scientific" praxis or academic rigor (which includes citing sources and composing a bibliography) that is demanded and usually required of professional historians today. The lack of extra Biblical text making reference to the Jesus Christians followed is only evidence for Jesus habing been a fictional person that never existed. But ample oral history contradicts this. Consider written history as heterosexuality today and oral history as homosexuality today. Or better yet among ancient man consider it in reverse. Just because you have a preference for one does not prove the non-existence of the other.
Click to expand...

Right! And the fact that he had powers ascribed to him that belong in the realm of fiction have nothing to do with his imaginary status. Ample oral history tells us of many that have no other existence but ample oral history. There is no evidence for the existence of spartacus but ample oral history for example.
Professor Jordan Peterson has even said that from studies done it is now known that oral histories can be passed down fairly accurately for thousands of years. Furthermore, the requirement for memorizing long histories and tales, even set to music, that evidence indicates ancient man had a memorization capability so superior to ours that it would baffle us today.
Click to expand...
But we are not talking about a culture or a part of history where writing did not exist and things had to be put to memory are we. So your liking the story of jesus to such things is a false comparrison.
You know... there were many Early Christian followers (often under persecution) who actually saw and spoke with both the 11 remaining (original) Apostles and the Blessed Holy Mother of Jesus. The Holy Mother having lived if I remember correctly both in Jerusalem (short period) and for the remainder of her life in Ephesus (I think it was). Early followers, both men and women, met with her and the Apostles used to occasionally come visit her. All the original remaining 11 Apostles but perhaps the Apostle John died for their belief in another man whom they believed the Son of God.
Click to expand...
Those 11 plus thousands of other so called prophets who made a living preaching in a time when it was common for men to preach.
In contrast to a Jewish storyteller centuries later who claimed to be the Messiah but when faced with death converted to Islam. Most the Jewish world believed at the time that he in fact was what Christians claim Jesus was. But whose story endured? Endured by the blood of the martyrs?
Click to expand...
Appeal to emotion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi

Islam it may be noted, also believes Jesus existed, they claim him as one of their prophets. From an historical aspect it is not just Christians. It would be Politically Incorrect of you to not celebrate an Islam belief.
Click to expand...
Yet i have no reason to believe the islamic any more than i do the christian. That you can point to many who do believe is not convincing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom