Denis Ryzhkov
>05:11:00: segodnia y menia bil interesni razgovor s onim iz dekanov Central Washington University (...), tak vot, tam bila rech o religiah i on itropritiroval inache: ateist - tot kotori ne verit v boga, agnostik - tot kotori ne znaet.. mojet est on , mojet nety, daite dokazatelstva i ia pooveru...... chto ti na eto skajew?
<09:46:10: takoe traktovanie veroyatno osnovano na prostom semanti4eskom analize termina v lob: a gnosis - ne znanie. Odnako dazhe v obs4eprinyatom smysle etot termin ozna4aet bolee glubokuyu ideyu: "...philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims ... god ... or even _ultimate reality_ is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable" (c) wikipedia
<09:46:13: t.e. zdess net ozhidaniya dokazatelstv, re4 o tom 4to sama vozmozhnost' bytt v 4yom-to (dazhe v okruzhayus4ey nas "reallnosti") uverennym na 100% - _veroyatnŠ¾_ pusta.
<09:46:16: veroyatno - potomu 4to ideya agnosticisma primenyonnaya sama k sebe prevras4aet svoi utverzhdeniya iz mnimou istiny v osoznannuyu veroyatnostt, tem samym dopuskaya alternativnye vozmozhnosti.
<09:46:19: istina i lozh sus4estvuyut kak inn i yann vzaimno pronikaya drug v druga, smeshivayass, obnaruzhivaya svoyu edinuyu prirodu i etim prevras4aya beloe i 4yornoe v seroe. edinoe.
<09:46:21: collapsiruet li eta ideya vse ostallnye i samu sebya - slozhniy vopros.
>04:25:00: ti v detstsve sliwkom mnogo smotrel v zerkalo chrez drygoe zerkalo....
<09:47:28: )))