A Challenge

[PureX]

I'll admit that the god-concept is very common but it's not universal. Several schools of Buddhism are atheistic, for example.

One might claim that philosophical taoism is atheistic, as well, but it's not actually so.

I also agree that we tend towards superstition as a species. We are a species that thrives on our ability to model our world. But our superstitions are always seeded in uncertainty and ignorance.

Not just uncertainty and ignorance, but also self-projection. The "God" we see in the world around us is ourselves being projected. And that "God" is REAL.

So far the best tool we have for unraveling the mysteries of our universe is science, and it doesn't see the slightest reason to suppose that there is a god.

As an artist, I would have to differ with that opinion. *smile*

As for an abundance of personal experience, well, people throughout the world would say they have paranormal abilities, but the burden of proof still rests with them.
The burden of proof doesn't go away just because most people agree with you, it goes away when you've proved your claim.

It doesn't exist just because some shmo says it exists, either. And in this case, keep in mind that PROOF is NOT POSSIBLE. Some slim evidence and some assessed probability is all we're ever going to get. So the claim for proof is really a red herring, as it can't be produced any more than the non-believer can produce proof of the non-existence of God.

 

[Seven]

It doesn't exist just because some shmo says it exists, either. And in this case, keep in mind that PROOF is NOT POSSIBLE. Some slim evidence and some assessed probability is all we're ever going to get. So the claim for proof is really a red herring, as it can't be produced any more than the non-believer can produce proof of the non-existence of God.

I'm not really asking for proof, I know there cannot possibly be any. However, if god is a concept that has been put forward without any proof, it can be rejected without proving non existence.

I don't really mind if people believe in god or not - to each his own. The point I'm trying to make is that believing in god takes faith, while disbelieving does not.

 

[PureX]

I don't really mind if people believe in god or not - to each his own. The point I'm trying to make is that believing in god takes faith, while disbelieving does not.

Actually, they both take faith. The atheist trusts on the blind that the evidence he doesn't see, isn't there. While the theist trusts that the evidence he does see means what he thinks it means.

 

[Alceste]

One might claim that philosophical taoism is atheistic, as well, but it's not actually so.

How is it not so? I know many theists interpret the first page of the TTC as a discussion of the ineffable nature of god, but that is not what means to a Taoist.

 

[PureX]

How is it not so? I know many theists interpret the first page of the TTC as a discussion of the ineffable nature of god, but that is not what means to a Taoist.

Philosophical taoism is agnostic, not atheistic. It's not based on the idea that God does not exist, but that we as human beings are not capable of grasping the Divine Mystery. Instead, we may align ourselves with the flow of existence as it is this flow of existence that is a reflection of the nature of the Divine Mystery. So that as we align with this way of being (the tao), we fulfill our place as reflections of the Divine Mystery from which we are manifest.

Taoism does not refer to deities not because it presumed them not to exist, but because it presumes itself incapable of understanding such things.

 

[Alceste]

Philosophical taoism is agnostic, not atheistic. It's not based on the idea that God does not exist, but that we as human beings are not capable of grasping the Divine Mystery. Instead, we may align ourselves with the flow of existence as it is this flow of existence that is a reflection of the nature of the Divine Mystery. So that as we align with this way of being (the tao), we fulfill our place as reflections of the Divine Mystery from which we are manifest.

Taoism does not refer to deities not because it presumed them not to exist, but because it presumes itself incapable of understanding such things.

Hmmm - I think maybe we disagree as to the definition of "atheism". To me (as it is to all the other atheists on the forum, as far as I can tell) it is the lack of a belief. Or, if you prefer, the lack of a particular filter (belief in god) through which the world can be perceived. Nothing can be "based on" the simple and straightforward lack of a belief in god, because there is nothing there on which to base it. A belief in god is something that has been added to the default position of no beliefs at all. So you can build on theism, because it's there. Atheism is not.

Anyhoo, defining atheism as "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" (as atheists generally prefer) rather than "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" (as theists generally prefer), Taoism is totally atheistic. There are no references to god/s at all, anywhere in the classic philosophical Taoist texts (TTC and Zhuang Zi, primarily). This demonstrates to my satisfaction that these Taoist philosophers lacked a belief in god. Surely if they had perceived the world through the filter of theistic belief, it would have made an appearance somewhere in their musings. But it does not appear. Any philosophy where theism makes no appearance is atheistic, IMO.

I should point out also that there is a giant pantheon of gods and demons in religious taoism, headed up by the yellow emperor, presiding eternally in multiple heavens and hells.

But there is no "God". The religious variant of Taoism is polytheistic. The philosophical and empirical variants are atheistic.

When Lao Tzu says "the tao that can be named is not the Tao", he means this: The minute you attempt to define the Tao (i.e. by calling it "God"), you are no longer talking about the Tao.

 

[cristheseeker]

in my opinion:

A-THEISM can be defined as NON-THEISM as well as ANTI-THEISM.

NON-THEISM is the lack or absence of belief(notice how the definition of nontheism only lists what it is not, even the word itself implies the non existence of something. it can not possibly list what it is, because it is nothing. therefore it is the lack of something. the lack of a belief. it is what is left(or the default position) after loss of belief, or no belief at all.

ANTI-THEISM is the opposition of belief. it is defined as something, since it is the opposition of something else. so unlike NON-THEISM, ANTI-THEISM is something because it can be defined as something, where as NON-THEISM can only be defined as something it is not or nothing.

since we have both ANTI-THEISTS and NON-THEISTS in the A-THEIST community, ATHEISM can be defined as both.

when it comes to agnosticism there are THEISTIC-AGNOSTICS, like pureX who do not suspend belief in a god, but try to reason with the existence of a god in mind(in other words try to convince themselfes of the existence of a god), which personally i believe is biased and defies logic, and then there are NON-THEISTIC-AGNOSTICS(or true freethinking, logical agnostics), like myself who refuse to accept the truth of a proposition for which there is insufficient evidence or logical justification(in other words we look at the issue from a neutral perspective,[being neither theists nor anti-theists] and use reason to see wether or not there is a god, or wether or not the arguments for or against such a being are reasonable, all while remaining open to all posibillities)

 

[Alceste]

in my opinion:

A-THEISM can be defined as NON-THEISM as well as ANTI-THEISM.

NON-THEISM is the lack or absence of belief(notice how the definition of nontheism only lists what it is not, even the word itself implies the non existence of something. it can not possibly list what it is, because it is nothing. therefore it is the lack of something. the lack of a belief. it is what is left(or the default position) after loss of belief, or no belief at all.

ANTI-THEISM is the opposition of belief. it is defined as something, since it is the opposition of something else. so unlike NON-THEISM, ANTI-THEISM is something because it can be defined as something, where as NON-THEISM can only be defined as something it is not or nothing.

since we have both ANTI-THEISTS and NON-THEISTS in the A-THEIST community, ATHEISM can be defined as both.

when it comes to agnosticism there are THEISTIC-AGNOSTICS, like pureX who do not suspend belief in a god, but try to reason with the existence of a god in mind(in other words try to convince themselfes of the existence of a god), which personally i believe is biased and defies logic, and then there are NON-THEISTIC-AGNOSTICS(or true freethinking, logical agnostics), like myself who refuse to accept the truth of a proposition for which there is insufficient evidence or logical justification(in other words we look at the issue from a neutral perspective,[being neither theists nor anti-theists] and use reason to see wether or not there is a god, or wether or not the arguments for or against such a being are reasonable, all while remaining open to all posibillities)

I would agree with all of that, and add that the vast majority of "atheists", IRL and on this forum, are what you would define as non-theistic-agnostics. An anti-theist would be somebody like Dawkins, whose views don't represent the majority - or even a sizable minority - of atheist views.

 

[PureX]

Hmmm - I think maybe we disagree as to the definition of "atheism". To me (as it is to all the other atheists on the forum, as far as I can tell) it is the lack of a belief. Or, if you prefer, the lack of a particular filter (belief in god) through which the world can be perceived. Nothing can be "based on" the simple and straightforward lack of a belief in god, because there is nothing there on which to base it. A belief in god is something that has been added to the default position of no beliefs at all. So you can build on theism, because it's there. Atheism is not.

Anyhoo, defining atheism as "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" (as atheists generally prefer) rather than "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" (as theists generally prefer), Taoism is totally atheistic. There are no references to god/s at all, anywhere in the classic philosophical Taoist texts (TTC and Zhuang Zi, primarily). This demonstrates to my satisfaction that these Taoist philosophers lacked a belief in god. Surely if they had perceived the world through the filter of theistic belief, it would have made an appearance somewhere in their musings. But it does not appear. Any philosophy where theism makes no appearance is atheistic, IMO.

I should point out also that there is a giant pantheon of gods and demons in religious taoism, headed up by the yellow emperor, presiding eternally in multiple heavens and hells.

But there is no "God". The religious variant of Taoism is polytheistic. The philosophical and empirical variants are atheistic.

When Lao Tzu says "the tao that can be named is not the Tao", he means this: The minute you attempt to define the Tao (i.e. by calling it "God"), you are no longer talking about the Tao.

Yes, we have a fundamental disagreement, here. The reason that Lao Tzu and others do not mention God is because it is considered hubris to speak of, or to name (to label is to possess), that which is beyond one's understanding. It is NOT because they presumed that God didn't exist. The most elemental philosophical image of taoism is that of the Divine Realm above, the Earthly Realm below, and mankind suspended between them. We have transcended the Earthly realm into self-consciousness, yet we have not achieved the level of awareness of the Divine. So the "tao" (the way) is how we are able to align ourselves with the Divine without the level of awareness that would enable us to perceive it directly.

 

[PureX]

when it comes to agnosticism there are THEISTIC-AGNOSTICS, like pureX who do not suspend belief in a god, but try to reason with the existence of a god in mind(in other words try to convince themselfes of the existence of a god), which personally i believe is biased and defies logic, and then there are NON-THEISTIC-AGNOSTICS(or true freethinking, logical agnostics), like myself who refuse to accept the truth of a proposition for which there is insufficient evidence or logical justification(in other words we look at the issue from a neutral perspective,[being neither theists nor anti-theists] and use reason to see wether or not there is a god, or wether or not the arguments for or against such a being are reasonable, all while remaining open to all posibillities)

You should really learn to ask people to characterize themselves, instead of doing it for them, inaccurately.

Theistic agnostics recognize that they cannot as limited human beings ascertain the truth regarding the existence or non-existence of God. And so choose to live as if God exists, for reasons of their own, just as non-theistic agnostics choose to live as if there is no God, for reasons of their own. One path is no more "reasonable" or logical than the other. Both recognize the truth: that we simply can't know, and then both consciously choose to follow the possibility that they deem most useful.

 

[Alceste]

Yes, we have a fundamental disagreement, here. The reason that Lao Tzu and others do not mention God is because it is considered hubris to speak of, or to name (to label is to possess), that which is beyond one's understanding. It is NOT because they presumed that God didn't exist. The most elemental philosophical image of taoism is that of the Divine Realm above, the Earthly Realm below, and mankind suspended between them. We have transcended the Earthly realm into self-consciousness, yet we have not achieved the level of awareness of the Divine. So the "tao" (the way) is how we are able to align ourselves with the Divine without the level of awareness that would enable us to perceive it directly.

OK, I've underlined the main weakness in your position. In order to "presume god doesn't exist", you first need to have a concept of "god" that is widely accepted enough to justify making a conscious decision about its existence (or lack thereof).

There is no evidence in Chinese culture or history of any monotheistic belief. Monotheism in present-day China is a recent evangelical phenomenon brought by their exposure to the west. Lao Tsu and Zhuang Zi could not have "presumed god didn't exist" because they had no concept of god to begin with, and nobody else they knew did either. The ancient Chinese had ancestor worship, animism, polytheism and superstition, but not monotheism.

Now, I suppose you can say the complete lack of historical evidence of montheistic belief in China is because the topic of God is "taboo", but IMO that doesn't hold much water considering the history of China. There are thousands of works of literature in the Taoist canon, disagreeing on everything under the sun. You seem to argue that they would all agree on only one thing - that it's verboten to speak of God. But why would that particular topic be their only taboo, when the Taoists had no qualms at all about holding forth on everything else? It can't be because "god" can't be known - religious Taoists have hundreds of supernatural gods, none of whom can be "known" and all of whom are freely discussed in Taoist literature.

Anyway, in light of history, your position makes no sense at all, unless the purpose of your opinion of Chinese cultural taboos is simply to make room in it for your own personal monotheistic belief.

 

[Seven]

Actually, they both take faith. The atheist trusts on the blind that the evidence he doesn't see, isn't there. While the theist trusts that the evidence he does see means what he thinks it means.

Well, let's just agree to disagree

 

[PureX]

OK, I've underlined the main weakness in your position. In order to "presume god doesn't exist", you first need to have a concept of "god" that is widely accepted enough to justify making a conscious decision about its existence (or lack thereof).

There is no evidence in Chinese culture or history of any monotheistic belief. Monotheism in present-day China is a recent evangelical phenomenon brought by their exposure to the west. Lao Tsu and Zhuang Zi could not have "presumed god didn't exist" because they had no concept of god to begin with, and nobody else they knew did either. The ancient Chinese had ancestor worship, animism, polytheism and superstition, but not monotheism.

Now, I suppose you can say the complete lack of historical evidence of montheistic belief in China is because the topic of God is "taboo", but IMO that doesn't hold much water considering the history of China. There are thousands of works of literature in the Taoist canon, disagreeing on everything under the sun. You seem to argue that they would all agree on only one thing - that it's verboten to speak of God. But why would that particular topic be their only taboo, when the Taoists had no qualms at all about holding forth on everything else? It can't be because "god" can't be known - religious Taoists have hundreds of supernatural gods, none of whom can be "known" and all of whom are freely discussed in Taoist literature.

Anyway, in light of history, your position makes no sense at all, unless the purpose of your opinion of Chinese cultural taboos is simply to make room in it for your own personal monotheistic belief.

Nevertheless, they did conceive of and speak of the "Divine". A lot. I agree that they did not call this divine realm/mystery "God", but they certainly did conceive of it. And they certainly did build their view of life and existence upon it.

"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real."

These phrases refer to a divine mystery. They refer to a realm beyond that which we can possess in our minds or capture with our words. They do not refer to a "god", yet they certainly do refer to something mysterious and transcendent. These are not the words of atheists.

 

[cristheseeker]

You should really learn to ask people to characterize themselves, instead of doing it for them, inaccurately. .

no offense, but youve characterized yourself plenty in the pointless back and forth weve had so far in this thread. so im drawing my conclusions based on that. and my conclusions tell me that you are a christian agnostic. while the logic and reasoning presented in your posts does seem honorable and well intentioned, much of it is flawed at its core, or at least in my eyes. you do know how to hold your own in making your case though. ill give you that.

Theistic agnostics recognize that they cannot as limited human beings ascertain the truth regarding the existence or non-existence of God. And so choose to live as if God exists, for reasons of their own, just as non-theistic agnostics choose to live as if there is no God, for reasons of their own. One path is no more "reasonable" or logical than the other. Both recognize the truth: that we simply can't know, and then both consciously choose to follow the possibility that they deem most useful.

well, i never cared much about political correctness. so call me a jerk, but here ill say it. Non-theistic agnostics are in fact more "reasonable" or logical than theistic agnostics.

why? because they view the issue of religion from a neutral standpoint where theistic agnostics are by definition one sided/biased.

in any sport you do not choose the referee who is rooting/betting on one team. you make the reasonable and logical choice and choose the neutral ref who doesnt care who wins either way.

it is unreasonable and illogical to be neutral, reasonable, logical on everthing, except one thing.

and thats just what theistic agnostics are. unreasonable.

or at least thats how i feel. maybe im wrong who knows.

 

[Alceste]

Nevertheless, they did conceive of and speak of the "Divine". A lot. I agree that they did not call this divine realm/mystery "God", but they certainly did conceive of it. And they certainly did build their view of life and existence upon it.

"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real."

These phrases refer to a divine mystery. They refer to a realm beyond that which we can possess in our minds or capture with our words. They do not refer to a "god", yet they certainly do refer to something mysterious and transcendent. These are not the words of atheists.

I'm an atheist. To me the statement that there is a limit to human understanding seems a profoundly atheist concept. A theist has notions and makes qualitative claims about things that lie permanently outside the limits of human understanding. An atheist does not.

Taoists don't make any reference to the "divine", as far as the dictionary is concerned.

Adjective

• S: (adj) divine, godly (emanating from God) "divine judgment"; "divine guidance"; "everything is black or white...satanic or godly"-Saturday Review
• S: (adj) providential, divine (resulting from divine providence) "providential care"; "a providential visitation"
• S: (adj) divine, godlike (being or having the nature of a god) "the custom of killing the divine king upon any serious failure of his...powers"-J.G.Frazier; "the divine will"; "the divine capacity for love"; "'Tis wise to learn; 'tis God-like to create"-J.G.Saxe
• S: (adj) divine (devoted to or in the service or worship of a deity) "divine worship"; "divine liturgy"
• S: (adj) divine, godlike (appropriate to or befitting a god) "the divine strength of Achilles"; "a man of godlike sagacity"; "man must play God for he has acquired certain godlike powers"-R.H.Roveref
• S: (adj) divine, elysian, inspired (being of such surpassing excellence as to suggest inspiration by the gods) "her pies were simply divine"; "the divine Shakespeare"; "an elysian meal"; "an inspired performance"

Divinity is inextricably linked to the concept of a creator god. The Taoists didn't have this concept, therefore they couldn't have had the concept of divine providence either.

I don't have any problem with theists finding meaning in the TTC that seems relevant to their beliefs, or substituting "god" for "tao" because it makes the concept more accessible to them. What I criticise and object to is the claim that the people who gave us this wisdom were theists who were simply being coy about their belief in a creator god. They were not. And what is the word for a person who is not a theist? An atheist.

Just to remind you again atheism, from the perspective of most atheists, is the lack of a belief in god/s - not the doctrine there is no god. The writings of Lau Tsu and Zhuang Zi fit perfectly well into this category. Although they themselves (being Chinese) might have maintained local superstitions vis a vis ancestor worship and other common beliefs in ancient China, they didn't write about them.

IMO, this is a rather futile discussion. The TTC is written in such a way as to allow a broad scope of interpretation, so when that text is isolated from its context your guess is as good as anybody else's - provided they also have no knowledge of Chinese culture and history.

 

[PureX]

IMO, this is a rather futile discussion. The TTC is written in such a way as to allow a broad scope of interpretation, so when that text is isolated from its context your guess is as good as anybody else's - provided they also have no knowledge of Chinese culture and history.

I agree whole heartedly with your noting our ignorance of Chinese thought and culture. I first read the TTC when I was in college and I didn't "get it" at all. All I saw was a bunch of directly self-contradictory phrases that seemed to add up to nothing. I was too young and too "linear-thinking" to grasp the humor and poetry there, and too immature to understand that the face of truth is often paradox.

I read it again maybe ten years later, and still could not understand it. Though this time, I was able to see some of the humor and poetry, and recognize that there were definitely some relevant truths lurking in there. Still, though, I was not yet mature enough to understand what I was reading.

Finally, some ten more years after that, and after having experienced a number of soul-wrenching traumas in my life, I read the TTC again. And this time I enjoyed it immensely. I saw the humor, and poetry, and perceived with clarity the ideas being presented, there. It was wonderful, like breathing in cold, fresh, mountain air after a long stay in the tropics.

It's the honesty, simplicity, and naturalness of taoism that I truly love. For me, it's spirituality without religion. It's a natural, spontaneous spirit of joy that comes with relaxing, and letting go, and just being.

It's way cool! *smile*

 

[PureX]

no offense, but youve characterized yourself plenty in the pointless back and forth weve had so far in this thread. so im drawing my conclusions based on that. and my conclusions tell me that you are a christian agnostic. while the logic and reasoning presented in your posts does seem honorable and well intentioned, much of it is flawed at its core, or at least in my eyes. you do know how to hold your own in making your case though. ill give you that.

well, i never cared much about political correctness. so call me a jerk, but here ill say it. Non-theistic agnostics are in fact more "reasonable" or logical than theistic agnostics.

why? because they view the issue of religion from a neutral standpoint where theistic agnostics are by definition one sided/biased.

in any sport you do not choose the referee who is rooting/betting on one team. you make the reasonable and logical choice and choose the neutral ref who doesnt care who wins either way.

it is unreasonable and illogical to be neutral, reasonable, logical on everthing, except one thing.

and thats just what theistic agnostics are. unreasonable.

or at least thats how i feel. maybe im wrong who knows.

Few of us ever learn anything in these debates by being convinced by someone else. The only real way to learn, here, is through self-analysis. The real value of a counterpoint is in using it as a sort of pry bar to pry open our own biases, heart-felt and reasonable as they seem to us, and then to look for the flaws that we are otherwise not seeing in them. It's exactly when someone says something that seems ridiculous and outrageous to me that I know I need to take an extra moment to see why this would effect me so. And many a time, I find a big fat bias of my own lurking there, waiting to be lanced and deflated like a boil.

But in the end, only I can do that. Only I can lift up the hard rock of my own self-righteousness to see the little lies and delusions lurking beneath. And it seems it's always my own ego that has generated them, and is protecting them, and is trying always to defend them to the end.

I appreciate a good debate for this reason, and I thank you for engaging me. I'm not sure where to go with it from here, though.

 

[Kathryn]

few of us ever learn anything in these debates by being convinced by someone else. The only real way to learn, here, is through self-analysis. The real value of a counterpoint is in using it as a sort of pry bar to pry open our own biases, heart-felt and reasonable as they seem to us, and then to look for the flaws that we are otherwise not seeing in them. It's exactly when someone says something that seems ridiculous and outrageous to me that i know i need to take an extra moment to see why this would effect me so. And many a time, i find a big fat bias of my own lurking there, waiting to be lanced and deflated like a boil.

But in the end, only i can do that. Only i can lift up the hard rock of my own self-righteousness to see the little lies and delusions lurking beneath. And it seems it's always my own ego that has generated them, and is protecting them, and is trying always to defend them to the end.

I appreciate a good debate for this reason, and i thank you for engaging me. I'm not sure where to go with it from here, though.

amen.

 

[Alceste]

I agree whole heartedly with your noting our ignorance of Chinese thought and culture. I first read the TTC when I was in college and I didn't "get it" at all. All I saw was a bunch of directly self-contradictory phrases that seemed to add up to nothing. I was too young and too "linear-thinking" to grasp the humor and poetry there, and too immature to understand that the face of truth is often paradox.

I read it again maybe ten years later, and still could not understand it. Though this time, I was able to see some of the humor and poetry, and recognize that there were definitely some relevant truths lurking in there. Still, though, I was not yet mature enough to understand what I was reading.

Finally, some ten more years after that, and after having experienced a number of soul-wrenching traumas in my life, I read the TTC again. And this time I enjoyed it immensely. I saw the humor, and poetry, and perceived with clarity the ideas being presented, there. It was wonderful, like breathing in cold, fresh, mountain air after a long stay in the tropics.

It's the honesty, simplicity, and naturalness of taoism that I truly love. For me, it's spirituality without religion. It's a natural, spontaneous spirit of joy that comes with relaxing, and letting go, and just being.

It's way cool! *smile*

It is pretty cool.

I've come at it from a different angle. I had a profound mystical experience at about 18 that instilled an awareness of qi and the inherent paradox of "deeming" in the core of my psyche. For weeks after this experience (and before reading the TTC) I was wandering around thinking "Aha! Beauty and ugliness depend on each other! Wealth and poverty create one another! You can't love without hating, or hate without loving!" and such like - there's no end to the variations once you get started.

I really thought I was thinking something completely new. Then I read the TTC and was relieved to discover I was not to be the only human in history to perceive the world in this way. I read it on a bus ride home, cover to cover, with a deep sense of satisfaction and affirmation. Since then, I've read a few translations, but the book has no particular significance beyond the comfort of knowing I'm not the only one of me (whatever that is) that has ever been.

This experience did provoke an interest in Taoist practices, but not until a decade later, when I took up tai chi and got seriously into Taoist literature and Chinese history. Now I know there are actually quite a few of me, but most of them are in China.

 

[emiliano]

The bible, like any literary work, is open to interpretation. None of these scriptures clearly say that "during the start of the 21st century there will be a decline of religiosity amongst the populations of several developed countries."

Rather, they give vague open predictions that can be applied to any number of circumstances. For example, during the enlightenment in America there was a shift away from religion. During those times I'll bet there were people quoting these very same scriptures.

Actually this what confirms our belief that this literal work was written under inspiration, it was inspire by the highest of intellect, it has taken all these millenniums for humans to develop tools that allows them to start scratching the surface of what this revelations contain, they don’t specifically address the 21st century because this is not the end times, it only tell us that the way it is heading and that God’s longsuffering is great, and that the cup of His wrath is not near full yet, that there is a long way to go yet, isn’t this book great and hope inspiring? Psa 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God! I will be praised among the nations, I will be praised in the earth. And it holds true throughout the generations.