There is only one truly correct way of referring to a date within time, and that is by using absolute time, which would mean measuring a moment in time from the start of time. As it is yet unknown exactly when time ‘began’ or if it even did, this is not a realistic proposition. The next best thing is to measure time from some point we do know of, and that is just what the BC and AD system uses. By measuring time from 0 AD back and forth with positive and negative figures, BC indicative of the number being negative and AD of its being positive, one can measure time without referring to a local relative system based on a local date.

Whilst theoretically one could measure time from any starting point, say, 1666 or 1578 or 1884 etc, as the 0 AD starting point has been in use for much of recent history and has been in use throughout the development of modern technology and social infrastructure, it would seem inefficient to replace it with a new starting point for no reason. So, with 0 AD being generally agreed upon by most people like the Greenwich meridian for measuring relative distances, there is now the matter of what to call years before and after that date.

Because when the calendar first used these dates it was written by Christians, one can not blame them for using the birth of Jesus Christ as the starting point for their calendar. However these days, in the age of reason and enlightenment of science, we know that gods and mythical beings do not exist, and we are aware that all religions are nothing but stories. As such it would seem to some that we should replace BC and AD with a new system. The most obvious replacement would seem to be + and -, i.e positive and negative, but it appears the general consensus of the opponents of the Christian system is to replace it with BCE and CE, that is ‘before common era’ and ‘common era’.

This is a preposterous and weird system to employ. Common era is such a vague term and is hardly appropriate for several reasons. Firstly there is no ‘common era’, but a string of various ‘eras’ which constitute the time period 0 AD to 2009 AD, secondly it would be difficult to define an ‘era’ precisely if its limitations were purely social, and also many societies exist at one time and thus this further complicates the process. Thirdly, referring to all moments of time beyond a point on a single dimensional array as the common era and all before as before it would imply that the common era is nothing but a reference to the period after such a point, and as such the term ‘era’ seems odd in this usage. Fourthly positive and negative are superior terms because of their mathematical simplicity.

As such if a change is to be had it should be to the simple positive and negative system, but no change is really necessary. A similar example, to show just how common these relics of the ancient are in today’s society and how uneccessary it is to remove them, would be the naming of the days of the week. To remove the religious from this we must replace all the days of the week except Sunday and Monday, Dies Solis and Dies Lunae. These two refer to the Sun and the Moon, and whilst they were certainly worshipped in the past they are not religious terms in their scientific context.

Tuesday would have to be renamed as it refers to Tiu, Wednesday as it refers to Woden, Thursday as it refers to Thor, Friday as it refers to Frigg and Saturday as it refers to Saterne. The replacement? Why not Oneday, Twoday, Threeday, Fourday etc? Precisely. Because there is no reason for change, as the present system is so integrated within the infrastructure of society that it would be inefficient to replace it for no good reason.

There simply is no reason to change these terms, because if we were to do so, we would have to change every other term with religious origins, and that would also be very inefficient.