Why do Atheist believe we cease to exist at death?

a reply to: SaturnFX

science is not a believe, science is a toolset to uncover evidence.

I agree in part. Science is a method for investigating the universe of all things physical/measurable/visible and the like. In the course of scientific investigation I think it make sense to adopt methodological naturalism, its been a proven strategy up to this point, and merely pragmatically limits the universe of discourse.

But, it seems to me, that when one moves past the notion that science is only concerned with the physical world, (for lack of a better word), and start to make statements that there isn't anything beyond the physical world one moves into the arena of beliefs, specifically metaphysical naturalism, which is not necessary to "do science", or a necessary conclusion for someone using methodological naturalism in the course of their scientific endeavors.

originally posted by: imwilliam
and start to make statements that there isn't anything beyond the physical world one moves into the arena of beliefs

Well I agree here.
A statement like that is very unscientific.
Rather, science is pertaining to meausring and understanding the physical universe..outside of that cant be measured (yet anyhow), so saying there is nothing more is...a faith based statement.
and I've never been one for faith based statements overall...even ones I agree with (in this case, I dont. I "know" there is things outside of our understanding)

a reply to: SaturnFX

I'm not "good" at science, but I value it highly.

I also value the Swiss made dial caliper I use at work. Its an excellent tool, when used for the job and within the limits that it's designed for. I imagine it makes for a lousy hammer though, but someone could certainly try to use it as a hammer.

I think that's something that happens a lot with science, trying to force it to do a job it wasn't designed for. It's misused at times by the "no god" camp, but I think it's most often misused by the "there is a god" camp, (of which I'm a member).

To be clear, I think it's mistake for theists to attempt to twist science into a tool for "proving God". I also think it's a mistake for those of a scientific bent to try and twist science into a tool for "disproving God".

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: chr0naut
Likewise, in the name of fair and reasonable balance, you shouldn't try and sway politicians or put your beliefs into schools.

science is not a believe, science is a toolset to uncover evidence.

you favor a book that suggests a man lived in a whale for 3 days and snakes that used to talk to people.

anyhow, nice chat.

And athesim is science?

Show me the evidence.

a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger,

Sorry will start quoting individual sections of posts soon. Am building a pc as old motherboard broke. So using a pc to reply as opposed to a galaxy s6... yes size does matter .

Regarding burden of proof n me i have given examples of the lack of evidence that Theists say god and science explains the natural phenomena.

Heres a massive debunk of Christian Theism.

If you follow your family tree back to the beginning, you find everyone came from Eve.

Right?

Wrong!

If that were true we would all have Eves mtDNA.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

BAM!! Genesis disproven. And if the start is wrong then why believe the rest?

My burden of proof is demonstrable but not theists claims.

You said:
'The moral outrages you mentioned are all actually against God's laws and defined as sins.'

No it is not. Where in the bible does it say slavery is wrong? Or you cant rape a chick and the people of that culture dont make the chick marry her rapest. Sorry last part is wrong they dont make her, they kill her is she refuses the marrage. And the other 'laws' god said that are demonic in nature.

Coomba98

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger,

Sorry will start quoting individual sections of posts soon. Am building a pc as old motherboard broke. So using a pc to reply as opposed to a galaxy s6... yes size does matter

.

Yeah, I'd much rather edit on a big screen than on a 'phone. If I shrink to view a whole page on the 'phone it's barely legible. Hope your build goes well!

Regarding burden of proof n me i have given examples of the lack of evidence that Theists say god and science explains the natural phenomena.

Heres a massive debunk of Christian Theism.

If you follow your family tree back to the beginning, you find everyone came from Eve.

Right?

Wrong!

If that were true we would all have Eves mtDNA.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Surely evolutionary biology speaks of a single mutation and a common ancestor for the entire human species?

And just to counter your Wikipedia link with another about mDNA ancestry and 'mitochondiral Eve', The Seven Daughters of Eve - Wikipedia.

As a side note, these mDNA haplogroups (there are actually more than seven) are from a time frame closer to 50,000 years ago (give or take 10,000 years) than the 3 million that we assume was the rise of the human species, so 'mDNA Eve' was not that ancient.

BAM!! Genesis disproven. And if the start is wrong then why believe the rest?

Nothing of the sort - premise wrong and unjustifiable. Not bam, fizzle....

My burden of proof is demonstrable but not theists claims.

Eh? at least theists can furnish slight evidence. You got nada. Your entire case is an absence of evidence (which theists deny).

You said:
'The moral outrages you mentioned are all actually against God's laws and defined as sins.'

No it is not. Where in the bible does it say slavery is wrong?

In Exodus where all the tribes of Israel were put into slavery by an evil Pharaoh and God intervened to force their release from slavery. That sounds fairly anti-slavery from the outset.

Or you cant rape a chick and the people of that culture dont make the chick marry her rapest. Sorry last part is wrong they dont make her, they kill her is she refuses the marrage.

In the very first mention of rape in the Bible, in Genesis, the son of a foreign clan leader rapes an Israelite girl and when caught, offers to marry her to 'make it right', with the usual BS defences that they loved each other and that it was consentual. The tribal elders are taking too long to deliberate on the issue so the girl's brothers take the law into their own hands, team up and kill the rapist for his crime. Doesn't sound anything like what you mentioned. I suspect that you are confusing some other book with the Bible.

And the other 'laws' god said that are demonic in nature.

Coomba98

OK, there were 614 specific articles of the Jewish law (most that dealt with application in highly specific situations like involuntary manslaughter, accidental civil cases & etc), but they were all dependent upon these 10 primary ones:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
Honour thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's house)
Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's wife)
Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's servants, animals, or anything else)

Jesus summarized the above in this way: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. The second commandment is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. These two commandments are the entire basis of God's law”.

These 10 and the two that summarise them do not proscribe punishments to be enacted by lawgivers. In fact, the Jewish legal system did not have police and law courts as we do. The laws were intended to be self regulated by the general populace under limitations imposed by a council of 70 adjudicators (Sanhedrin), whose job was to ensure fair trial with adequate evidence and that the punishment did not exceed the minimum required (i.e: cruel and unusual punishment was prohibited and was itself illegal, warranting judgement and punishment). It was a system that worked flawlwssly for a minimum of 490 years (as it was re-implemented a few times, one could say thousands of years). The system worked for both monarchist and a localized tribal governments. Only when foreign inflences took control of the Jewish people and homelands, did the legal system fail.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: chr0naut
Likewise, in the name of fair and reasonable balance, you shouldn't try and sway politicians or put your beliefs into schools.

science is not a believe, science is a toolset to uncover evidence.

you favor a book that suggests a man lived in a whale for 3 days and snakes that used to talk to people.

anyhow, nice chat.

And athesim is science?

Show me the evidence.

atheism is simply a stance based on lack of evidence
a result
There is no evidence of deities, especially ones described by holy books and cults, religions, etc...therefore I choose to have no belief in any at the moment until such a time as enough evidence compels me to alter my belief.

I have the same view for witches, vampires, fairys, etc.

I believe in ghosts..but I dont know what a ghost is outside of a identification that most closely resembles the things I have experienced firsthand and repeatedly.

Thats how all that works.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: chr0naut
Likewise, in the name of fair and reasonable balance, you shouldn't try and sway politicians or put your beliefs into schools.

science is not a believe, science is a toolset to uncover evidence.

you favor a book that suggests a man lived in a whale for 3 days and snakes that used to talk to people.

anyhow, nice chat.

And athesim is science?

Show me the evidence.

atheism is simply a stance based on lack of evidence

Agnosticism is a stance based upon absence of evidence. Atheism is a denial that a god could exist.

a result
There is no evidence of deities, especially ones described by holy books and cults, religions, etc...therefore I choose to have no belief in any at the moment until such a time as enough evidence compels me to alter my belief.

You'll alter your no-belief, belief?

I have the same view for witches, vampires, fairys, etc.

I believe in ghosts..but I dont know what a ghost is outside of a identification that most closely resembles the things I have experienced firsthand and repeatedly.

Thats how all that works.

I know you have no evidence (at least that you will accept). That was what I was saying.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Agnosticism is a stance based upon absence of evidence. Atheism is a denial that a god could exist.

umm

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

It simply means that.
and now for agnostic. This is a bit more muddy because slang use is now overcoming the original intent of the word, but agnostic is a counter to gnostic..basically the opposite stance
gnostics from of course gnosis

gnosisplay
noun gno·sis ˈnō-səs
Popularity: Bottom 40% of words
Definition of gnosis
: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation

so a knowledge of spiritual truth..a knowledge.
the opposite is no knowledge..or having no knowledge.

agnostic atheist means not knowing, so not believing

an agnostic theist is more of the people who have religion because of pascals wager..a weakened believer in a deity simply because they dont know, but best to pick something just in case..have a dice roll at salvation, whatever...this actually is most religious folks.

a gnostic atheist would be someone who somehow magically knows there are no gods, therefore no belief in gods..smug jerks in comments "god not real" types.

gnostic theists on the other hand are the ones saying "god definately real"...but always strangely forget to show the strong evidence..I guess they also are magical.

Glad we can clear that up for you.

You'll alter your no-belief, belief?

I dont have a belief, I have a stance. once things change, I will alter accordingly.
religion doesn't allow for beliefs to change.
and now you know why atheism isn't a belief, its simply a stance..a outlook.
Glad I could clear that up for you.

I know you have no evidence (at least that you will accept). That was what I was saying.

Only subjective evidence based on my own experience.
I could be insane, lying, mistaken, or 100% accurate in my accounts. I also keep a very open mind as to my experiences and what they could have been.

a reply to: chr0naut

Hay chr0naut,

Yeah cant wait for the new pc. I wee alittle every time i think about it.

Regarding your comment: evolutionary biology speaks of a single mutation and a common ancestor for the entire human species?

I used to think the same a year or so ago. Remember that thread i did about where is the white mans homeland. Goodman peter vlar educated me on that. Although he would not go into his credentials when i asked i have seen another post of his saying anthropology is his profession. And what he says shows he has massive knowledge in this area that can be fact checked by google.

He told me in the other thread its not one member of a species that causes the change, but many if not all of them in that social group change slowly over time.

That 7 Eves originate from Sumera in the epic of Atrahasis with 14 birth goddesses. 7 to the right impregnated with male homo sapiens and 7 to left impregnated with female homo sapiens. Whos mtDNA would be passed down to her children and her female line throughout the progressing family tree.

Read somewhere on the net about 10 years ago and cant find it now about the genome sequencing. They found at the time 5 different mtDNA from all that were tested.

Regarding Eves daughters, this is in line with the Gnostic texts. However, their mtDNA would be same as their mother. Thats how it works.

So the BAM to a fizzel just went BAM again.

Almost done with my lunch break but will get back to you with a response to gods demonic laws in the bible that has never been over turned by god or Yeshi.

Yeshi even said i have not come to abolish the laws but to make a new covenant.

i have not come to abolish the laws

Coomba98

im atheist,,i don't believe we cease to exist after death,,,some atheists like me keep an open mind, I just don't think any book has anything to do with a "god" or "diety". im not dead set on a no god philosophy either, my atheism is really me against religion.

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay chr0naut,

Yeah cant wait for the new pc. I wee alittle every time i think about it.

That could also be a symptom of diabetes mellitus. Be careful neighbour.

Regarding your comment: evolutionary biology speaks of a single mutation and a common ancestor for the entire human species?

I used to think the same a year or so ago. Remember that thread i did about where is the white mans homeland. Goodman peter vlar educated me on that. Although he would not go into his credentials when i asked i have seen another post of his saying anthropology is his profession. And what he says shows he has massive knowledge in this area that can be fact checked by google.

I believe that Peter V has impressive cred, I agree with you there.

The standard mode of evolution has a single genetic mutation being passed on sexually or asexually and then selected for (given survival advantage) by natural pressures. In this way each change comes via a single individual.

I am of the opinion that are many modes of genetic transfer, which definitely muddies the waters. Horizontal gene transfer, cloning, various biological combinatory processes and all sorts of weird stuff can smudge things out.

He told me in the other thread its not one member of a species that causes the change, but many if not all of them in that social group change slowly over time.

That 7 Eves originate from Sumera in the epic of Atrahasis with 14 birth goddesses. 7 to the right impregnated with male homo sapiens and 7 to left impregnated with female homo sapiens. Whos mtDNA would be passed down to her children and her female line throughout the progressing family tree.

As I mentioned, there were actually more than the original proposed 7 haplotypes, more information has come to light over the years since publication of "The Seven Daughters of Eve". Just sayin'.

Atrahasis (meaning 'very wise') was a bloke.

The Gilgamesh Epic tablet IX mentions him has him building a boat to survive a flood that even the gods were afraid of. Him and his family survive the seven day flood.

In the first epic of Atrahasis, it was 14 lumps of clay that were plcaed into an artificial womb (oven?) with a brick in between the piles and that once the womb was opened (with a stick), gave birth to the human race (7 males & 7 females).

Despite a couple of similarities, the Genesis and Atrahasis stories are significantly different on many counts.

Read somewhere on the net about 10 years ago and cant find it now about the genome sequencing. They found at the time 5 different mtDNA from all that were tested.

Those are the mDNA haplogroups.

Regarding Eves daughters, this is in line with the Gnostic texts. However, their mtDNA would be same as their mother. Thats how it works.

So the BAM to a fizzel just went BAM again.

The mDNA haplogroups have slight differences to their progenitor, indicating a relationship, but also accumulation of different traits (by process of mutation, assumedly).

The Gnostic texts are many thousands of years after the Genesis and Atrahasis texts (most Gnostic texts are post Christian).

Still, fizzle,as far as I can see.

Almost done with my lunch break but will get back to you with a response to gods demonic laws in the bible that has never been over turned by god or Yeshi.

Yeshi even said i have not come to abolish the laws but to make a new covenant.

i have not come to abolish the laws

Coomba98

But the murder of innocents and the marriage or murder of rape victims are not part of the Law of God.

Remember that the early opponents of Christianity accused them of cannibalism of infants (based upon Communion ceremonies), incest and magic but such is not the case, it is a complete lie. The same with people who charge that Jewish laws were obscene and immoral.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: chr0naut
Agnosticism is a stance based upon absence of evidence. Atheism is a denial that a god could exist.

umm

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

It simply means that.
and now for agnostic. This is a bit more muddy because slang use is now overcoming the original intent of the word, but agnostic is a counter to gnostic..basically the opposite stance
gnostics from of course gnosis

gnosisplay
noun gno·sis ˈnō-səs
Popularity: Bottom 40% of words
Definition of gnosis
: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation

so a knowledge of spiritual truth..a knowledge.
the opposite is no knowledge..or having no knowledge.

agnostic atheist means not knowing, so not believing

an agnostic theist is more of the people who have religion because of pascals wager..a weakened believer in a deity simply because they dont know, but best to pick something just in case..have a dice roll at salvation, whatever...this actually is most religious folks.

a gnostic atheist would be someone who somehow magically knows there are no gods, therefore no belief in gods..smug jerks in comments "god not real" types.

gnostic theists on the other hand are the ones saying "god definately real"...but always strangely forget to show the strong evidence..I guess they also are magical.

Glad we can clear that up for you.

You'll alter your no-belief, belief?

I dont have a belief, I have a stance. once things change, I will alter accordingly.
religion doesn't allow for beliefs to change.
and now you know why atheism isn't a belief, its simply a stance..a outlook.
Glad I could clear that up for you.

I know you have no evidence (at least that you will accept). That was what I was saying.

Only subjective evidence based on my own experience.
I could be insane, lying, mistaken, or 100% accurate in my accounts. I also keep a very open mind as to my experiences and what they could have been.

That would be really nice but if atheism was simply an absence of belief about God, this allows a definition of atheism as; 'a possibility that a god could exist'.

So, is atheism an acceptance of a possibility that god could exist, or is that outside the definition of atheism?

originally posted by: chr0nautThat would be really nice but if atheism was simply an absence of belief about God, this allows a definition of atheism as; 'a possibility that a god could exist'.

So, is atheism an acceptance of a possibility that god could exist, or is that outside the definition of atheism?

Saying god doesn't exist is a statement of fact. facts need evidence.
there is no evidennce (possible) to claim such thing

a (actual) atheist will say they disbelieve in deities due to no evidence, but sure..absolutely there could be a god, or many. just until such a time as convincing evidence comes in that cannot be denied, then it is a non belief.

anyone claiming anything needs to back up that claim. to claim there is no god is exactly the same as to claim there is one.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: chr0nautThat would be really nice but if atheism was simply an absence of belief about God, this allows a definition of atheism as; 'a possibility that a god could exist'.

So, is atheism an acceptance of a possibility that god could exist, or is that outside the definition of atheism?

Saying god doesn't exist is a statement of fact. facts need evidence.
there is no evidennce (possible) to claim such thing

a (actual) atheist will say they disbelieve in deities due to no evidence, but sure..absolutely there could be a god, or many. just until such a time as convincing evidence comes in that cannot be denied, then it is a non belief.

anyone claiming anything needs to back up that claim. to claim there is no god is exactly the same as to claim there is one.

OK, where is the evidence that God doesn't exist, which would establish it as a fact? As you said "facts need evidence", how can something un-evidenced ever be truthfully called a fact?

But your last paragraph is finally agreeing with what I have been saying all along - that the claims of both sides of the theist/atheist argument have equal weight from a rational perspective. Neither wins. Neither is the "logical default" because there isn't one at present.

If either side is ever proven to be true (in a form agreeable to all sides), then that side of the argument would be the rational default and fact.

originally posted by: chr0naut
OK, where is the evidence that God doesn't exist, which would establish it as a fact? As you said "facts need evidence", how can something un-evidenced ever be truthfully called a fact?

I dont know if you are trolling now or just being willfully ignorant.

you cant prove a negative, not in regards to deities.
I am not claiming gods exist. you are..you make the claim, the burden of proof is on your hands, until then, its assumed a negative.

same reason I dont have to have evidence to say that I dont believe in fairies because there is no evidence supporting such a claim.

I suspect you are simply being dishonest with yourself and feel the need to say rediculous things in order to justify this oddness..there is no belief, no claims by atheism..none...atheism doesn't claim anything does or doesn't exist...it simply is sstating it is not going to believe in a deity unless there is enough evidence to support such a claim.

If a atheist claims "god doesn't exist", then you may ask that person for their proof..as they are being a gnostic atheist..aka, has knowledge that there are no gods...and that is only achieved through evidence.
so, the burden of proof is on that person.

a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger,

Ill hold off of that until i ask goodman peter vlar to offer his expert opinion. Although i dont believe his as knowledge of genetics as he is anthropology i still think his opinion would be worth considering.

Or if theres a geneticist here i would love there input.

I do agree there would be more than five mtDNA bearers out there. At the time of testing in that report i read ten years ago was an extremely small part of the population. Think it was several tens of millions of people who were tested. Which is bugger all compared to the planets population.

Regarding The Epic of Atrahasis, its definitely fourteen birth goddesses. Dont have my book with that particular story but a search on the net reveals;

'Seven created males, seven created females, for the womb-goddess is the creator of fate. Enki paired them two by two, he paired them two by two in her presence. Mami made these rules for people:

'In the house of a woman who is giving birth the mud brick shall be put down for seven days. Belet-ili, wise Mami shall be honored.

The midwife shall rejoice in the house of the woman who gives birth and when the woman gives birth to the baby, the mother of the baby shall sever the cord herself. A man shall cleave unto a woman, a boy to a girl. A girl shall be ready by the sign of her bosoms, a young man, by the beard upon his cheek.

In the gardens and the waysides they shall cleave unto each other, a wife and her husband shall choose each other.' The womb-goddesses were assembled and Nintu was present.'

If you read the full text its clear theres fourteen birth goddesses and not just one. I recommend reading it as its an intetesting story.

And the date it originated unknown as all we have are copies of copies. Given Sumeria is the oldest known civilisation and the creation story, i believe it to be dated pre-genesis. But thats a soft belief.

Think i migh start another thread on the demonic laws of the christian god so it doesnt derail this one even further.

Coomba98

The definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism are not as precise as many would like to believe.

For example, atheism can be strong, weak, implicit or explicit (which can be broken down further into sub-groups). Agnosticism can also be broken down into weak or strong positions as well. To add further complexity, you can be a combination of both.

Therefore, although more convenient at categorising somebody's beliefs, the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are very general and are not specific enough if you wish to accurately understand somebody's views.

a reply to: neoholographic

I'm talking about objective reality though. Also I'm not saying I refuted what you're saying. I'm not sure you've proven anything on your end either for that matter.

What I was saying is that if there is something outside objective reality science won't be able to measure it or help prove it so what difference does it make if it's there or not as it pertains to this topic. If something, like God, exists outside the objective universe we're in, we won't know about it. Not as long as we're restricted to this objective universe. So we can't exactly say anything about it for sure anyway.

As for "Self Awareness" being persistent after death. What would "self awareness" be without a self??? I'm not saying you're wrong exactly, but if we're going to entertain that idea I'd say that as the "self" dies you'd lose the "self awareness" even if the awareness continued. Which isn't the same thing.

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger,

Ill hold off of that until i ask goodman peter vlar to offer his expert opinion. Although i dont believe his as knowledge of genetics as he is anthropology i still think his opinion would be worth considering.

Or if theres a geneticist here i would love there input.

I do agree there would be more than five mtDNA bearers out there. At the time of testing in that report i read ten years ago was an extremely small part of the population. Think it was several tens of millions of people who were tested. Which is bugger all compared to the planets population.

Regarding The Epic of Atrahasis, its definitely fourteen birth goddesses. Dont have my book with that particular story but a search on the net reveals;

'Seven created males, seven created females, for the womb-goddess is the creator of fate. Enki paired them two by two, he paired them two by two in her presence. Mami made these rules for people:

'In the house of a woman who is giving birth the mud brick shall be put down for seven days. Belet-ili, wise Mami shall be honored.

The midwife shall rejoice in the house of the woman who gives birth and when the woman gives birth to the baby, the mother of the baby shall sever the cord herself. A man shall cleave unto a woman, a boy to a girl. A girl shall be ready by the sign of her bosoms, a young man, by the beard upon his cheek.

In the gardens and the waysides they shall cleave unto each other, a wife and her husband shall choose each other.' The womb-goddesses were assembled and Nintu was present.'

If you read the full text its clear theres fourteen birth goddesses and not just one. I recommend reading it as its an intetesting story.

And the date it originated unknown as all we have are copies of copies. Given Sumeria is the oldest known civilisation and the creation story, i believe it to be dated pre-genesis. But thats a soft belief.

Think i migh start another thread on the demonic laws of the christian god so it doesnt derail this one even further.

Coomba98

The Atrahasis stories were Babylonian (and later, Assyrian), not Sumerian.

Their ancient pedigree was not as ancient as Sumeria (5000 BCE to 1700 BCE). Babylon's first dynasty began in 1894 BCE with Hammarabi, and had overrun the Sumerian empire by 1792 BCE.

The Genesis events were @ 4000 BCE (by various dating methods - Newton, Kepler, Ben Halfata, Scalinger & Ussher).

Definitely, Abraham is believed to have been born 1,948 years after the Creation in 1813 BCE (according to Jewish scolarly tradition), which would make him nearly contemporary with the Atrahasis stories.

The oldest Atrahasis tablets we have were from 1640 BCE but most scholars have suggested that the stories date from about 1800 BCE (give or take a couple of hundred years).