You may be right but the fact is that astronomy uses the year 0 and historians generally do not. The point can only be academic since nobody alive in those years was numbering from any recent (to them) event, they would be numbering from the founding of Rome or other timetables based on the reign of kings and emperors. It was only many years later that church based historians counted back, established a year number (with an error of 4 to 6 years built into it) and things went from there to here.
Astronomy tables running back past zero will show a date that is one fewer years BC than a historian would assign to the same year, hence the astronomer’s 6 BC is the historian’s 7 BC (and the astronomer’s 0 AD is the historian’s 1 BC).
I don’t have a preference, but knowing the information allows me to co-ordinate findings from one source to another. The one advantage to a year zero is that it is actually a hundred years from 50 BC to 50 AD, in historical terms, it is 99 years.
If our year dating system was continuous from the events of the first week of the earth emerging from chaos as described in Genesis, it seems unlikely that first year would have been dubbed Year Zero. The first year would be assigned a finger or digit in our “base ten” counting system (which itself arose out of the fact that as humans we possess ten fingers) just like any other year. Once Adam and Eve got their minds around the concept of a “year” (it would presumably take a year or twould at least), that first year would have been known as or referred to thenceforth as Year One. The concept of “zero” was not even going to be invented until thousands of years later anyway...