Are the rationalists the most redpilled people on earth?

>>>/reddit/

Why do you have that on your computer?

>le alt right maymay

It is right in many instances actually. Hardcore liberals are as much for censorship as fascists were. Greatest women haters have basicly the same view on women as some kind of mindless drones that need their leadership as radical feminists do. Fedora tippers and religious fundies are basicly identical at this point in their zealotry.

Sargon can be ok to a point. He did a video about the British efforts to abolish the Atlantic slave trade, shit made me proud.

Shoe is fit and has points on feminism.

That fat blonde guy, wouldn't punish myself with his bullshit ever.

Who are these people? I just know shoe and her boyfriend, they are entertaining but far from the smartest

>Horseshoe "Theory"

When will this meme end? It's just a notion devised by Centrists so they can lump two opposing sides into the same pile and then masturbate over their own intelligence.

I am a very rational human being. I pride myself on being able to shield my reasoning and my decision-making process from useless emotions *tips*

Fuck off you politically illiterate child.

>Are you a follower of the rationalists?
4 unemployed numales and an attention whore making money by talking about "le ebil feminist with 3 subscribers"
They all deserve purgation by flame

>bananaman
>rationalist

>Including the banana commie in that picture
wew

The Amazing Atheist (TJ) has a micopenis and literally has nothing of value to add to any conversation. The rest are fine.

I don't like Shoe at all. Anti-Feminism has become the epitome of beating a dead horse; there's nothing left to squeeze out of Feminism.

Further, she isn't bringing anything to the table that hasn't been picked apart a thousand times.

YouTubers like Stefan Molyneux, Millennial Woes and Black Pigeon Speaks talk about issues that are far more pressing right now.

>TJ
Total degenerate, Common Filth tier.

>Sargon
Black dicks all up in his face; his wife has a son.

>Tits on Screen
Gaymur grrl fedora-club latch-on

>Some ginger cunt
Some ginger cunt.

Actually, i would argue that he is the perfect representation of what happens when you willingly stray away from God. We are broken creatures that can only hope to find happiness through Christianity.

Its from the ED page on him

>calls themselves "rationalists"
>don't believe in a priori knowledge
>believe this is rational
Either they are too stupid to understand they are actually empiricists, or they are too stupid to understand that a priori knowledge and non-existence of God need reconciliation.

winrar

boxxy is a coalburning whore

Almost all the "rationalists" are normie memers. They have no background in formal logic and no understanding of philisophical history. They cherry pick arguments which fit their narrative and when presented with an argument they don't like, they dismiss it on illogical grounds without ever bothering to understand the totality or the nuances of the argument. Case in point: how they treat Aquinas. There's a reason that scholastic metaphysics is making a huge comeback in modern philosophy.

>The Amazing Commie

Literally thinks raising the minimum wage is a good thing. His entire Drunken Peasants podcast is just him and his friends pausing the video they're watching every three seconds to make an emotional argument with little logic behind it.

It's the equivalent of "You're a big meanie because you disagree with me!" He treats everyone who disagrees with him like they're all literally mentally retarded.

Straying away from God didn't give him dick so tiny that he at first needed to find bulls to satisfy his wife and then just threw it all away and become a faggot. He was born with it.

I like them. I don't like the amazing atheists videos much though because of his habit of yelling which I find really annoying.

Hi everybody Stefan Molyneux from FreedomainRadio here and

Thank you, based philosophynon

>When will this meme end?

its not a meme.

Those people aren't rationalists. They're empiricists. Those are fundamentally mutually exclusive epistemological stances.

>"The Rationalists"
>"Anyone who isn't a Classical Liberal is either an SJW or a Right-wing SJW!"

Very rational there, boys.

I do like Sargon, though. He's not bad. The rest are cringy fedoras, though, especially Shoe.

Technically, they're self employed.
Still a bunch of slack jawed faggots, though.

The other one I would even call intellectually honest and not a meme is sargon of akkad. Also which one is the faggot drinking bleach?

>it's not a meme

Yes it is. It has no basis in any data or fact. It's literally just an opinion passed off as a theory.

No filthy frank? Dropped.

He's the most irrational rationalist memer.

*the only one
Just woke up

>Common Filth tier
Common Filth is based you fucking faggot

>see? These people are both trying to use the government to enforce their radically different ideology! Totally different!

Yeah, who would have thought, opposing sides wish to silence each other?

When two sides are in conflict, naturally being in conflict is what they have in common. But does that make them similar in their views or goals? No.

But it was straying away from God that lead to the path that gave the world that knowledge, plus importantly, that a person would so irredeemably fuck themselves in the head.
amazingatheist.tumblr.com/post/102976189751/the-end

>mfw when these pseudointellectual nu-male faggots call themselves rationalists

He's a crazy fundie raving about shit confused kids write on their blogs.

totally the same*

>tfw you're shit at memeing

>rationalist
>atheist

Please pick one.

This idea that the entire Alt-Right is equivalent to SJWs is intellectually dishonest considering the Alt-Right is a web of ideologies, not a single one. Sure. it has its extremists, every ideology does, even Centrism.

Who is the cigarette guy? He is the only one I don't know.

He has valid opinions on the Alt-Right and the faggotry withen the right. Lurk Moar on CF

oh also who is the no face guy, didn't recognize him

Valid if you are a fundamentalist faggot, yes.

implying that belief in god could ever be considered remotely rational now that we understand the origins and evolution of life

Says the faggot that fucks dudes in dresses

>not knowing what a rationalist is
>red herring implies a false dichotomy between "knowledge" of the origins and evolution of life and the existence of God

Been following TAA slightly before the Jokela Shootings, later starter to watch Sargon and then Armored Sceptic. Undoomed, Shoe and Chris Ray Gun (?) have a bunch of good videos that i have also watched but i don't follow those guys actively.

All and all... good stuff.

I don't. I just don't like crazy christian LARPers jerking off to blacks.

>All Radical Atheists.

Kill yourself my man.

Its much easier to avoid taking a side.

The metaphorical aspect still has wright as some forms of religious theory where basically protoscience just as alchemy was.

To my knowledge everyone there hates banana man

No

>horseshit theory
Please take your own life.

So, can you guys answer:

Do the Rationalists believe that anyone who isn't a Classical Liberal or a Libertarian isn't rational?

Because Sargon lost his debate with Millennial Woes, in my opinion (because Woes had the evidence to back him up), and yet Sargon would likely refuse to call him a 'Rationalist'.

Fucking jewtube nerds who gives a fuck losers.

Should be called the fedoras desu

how so?

I know at least sargon isn't a radical atheist. When asked if he would force people into atheism if he had the oppurtunity he said no, he believes in freedom of religion. Skeptic is literally just a skeptic, he's even open to denying science because the evidence they have isn't something you yourself got from a test so long as you don't take your lack of knowledge as an indication that you should believe other things with no evidence such as flat earth theory.

No. Any person who intentionally tries to put themselves out there as a public figure for any ideology (or supposed lack thereof) is a narcissist, plain and simple. They aren't redpilled because they're still egotistical whether they realize it or not.

read up on horseshoe theory.

Sargon has had them all on his live streams, they get along well. Also the has featured a fair amount of them in his videos.

Im going to cuck armoured skeptic!

>These people are both trying to use the government
You really don't get how this works do you?
To call what we have on Cred Forums a mirror of the left's SJWs is an oversimplification used by people who don't want to learn what these people want from life and their views. The methods they use to go about his is different 99% of the time, but the 1% of the time we do something remotely similar to the left it gets focused on.

Kill yourself OP. You watch videos of people stopping other videos to have a debate with someone who isn't there and can't defend themselves...its fucking pathetic get some balls and call someone out and actually debate them. Say what you will about Jones but at least he can handle confrontation. Also the so called "rationalist" you mentioned are idiots like every other YouTube attention whore

>Thinking a show called the Drunken Peasants would feature well thought out opinions and debates using carefully constructed arguemnts

Fucking reeeee

someone post shoeonhead nudes already

>implying horseshoe theory isn't so retard - tier it takes any more reading than the name to understand what it claims

Sargon isn't against people who aren't liberal and also came out making arguments against libertarians just yeaterday.

>there's nothing left to squeeze out of Feminism

except feminism itself. it didn't exactly go away because someone on youtube talked about it.

kill youself

Also being a rationalist has nothing to do with a political classification, he would not call say Nigel farage a rationalist because he does not make himself an active member of the community that has dubbed itself the rationalists, it's literally a site with a name, it's not a classification.

sargon
undoomed

>it's just a meaningless name
>they're not retarded desu

I never said they aren't retarded. I disagree with almost everyone there but i still think they are in some way doing something worth something so I somewhat follow a few of them. It is a meaningless name, het over it. In fact go check out the rationalists community and see they have a diverse group of members in terms of political leaning.

*get over it
Still tired.

>Get over it
>Therefore it's a meaningless name
>They didn't misuse the word entirely as a description of themselves
>They're not retarded desu
Get over it. Deal with it. It's not that hard. Current year.
>go check out the rationalists community
Nothing narcissistic youtuber atheists have to say could possibly be of any value

Basically admits being a degenerate on his profile.

>(((You)))Tube clown e-celebs
>most intelligent people on Earth

Go shill your faggot videos somewhere else you utter fucking cunts.

Banana.

You don't get to be taken seriously after you banana yourself sexually.

I hate you for posting this. There should be a warning or something

>someone who shoved a banana up his ass
>faggot niggerfucker
>coalburning slag
>cuck who dates coalburning slag
>????
>redpilled

No.

I guess the redskins name truly is problematic. Also they didn't misuse the name. The name is there to describe their set of principles in that they will not make an attempts to be intellectually dishonest (which is funny given a fair amount of them are due to retardation such as skeptic)
But no I totally agree. Their name is too problematic and as thus is somehow a point against them, great leftist thinking there boyo.

>they have nothing of value to say because they are atheist.
Good thing not all of them are atheist then.

kek'd

>I guess the redskins name truly is problematic.
The redskins aren't making a literal claim about themselves with their name. You have to be 18+ to post here, m8.

>origins of life

Lol no. We don't even have a clue. Now fuck off loser

It's funny because their fanbases would read that and unironically think "time to donate again xD"

>claiming to be rational is a big claim
Its about as big of a claim as saying I won't try to be a drugged up hippest that argues for an ideology because it feels good. It's quite meaningless dipshit. Many people could be a part of the community if they wanted, even millenial woes ya fucking cuckold.

>Be rationalist

>Don't side with the Christfags and Nationalist idealogues

>Get overrun by Muslims

>Get stoned to death or crucified

Wut do?

TJ is a giant degenerate, he isn't one of us.

A man who pours boiling hot oil on his dick isn't sane or intelligent. He's a belligerent e-begging man child.

Millennial Woes IS a part of a movement-The Alt-Right.

No. And they're both bunk. As it leads to justificationism, verificationism, positivism, etc.
>inb4 hurr durr solipsism
No. That's bunk too.

please elaborate, i am interested

>is a big claim
I didn't say it's a big claim. I said it's a literal claim. They've obviously named themselves "The Rationalists" because they are actually calling themselves rationalists. This is practically indisputable. Are you really so desperate do shill your stupid channel that you are reaching this hard?

Cf is a nigger-lover?

>He has valid opinions on the Alt-Right and the faggotry withen the right.
he hyperinflates it because he wants everyone to be christian instead. He has points but his show has gotten tiring.

Side with the Nationalist Christfriends, of course.

>You should side with me or you might get killed
>fuck having free will

good argument you have there. NOT.

You do understand the rationalists aren't their own movement right? In fact the rationalists has many people in it from multiple movements. Holy fuck you are retarded.
Are you so retarded as to think me distinguishing the fact it's not a big claim had something to do with you? I said it's a claim rendered meaningless because all it requires is the members attempt to argue based upon the merits of the argument which a fair amount of people fucking do, even the alt right. I'm saying it's fucking meaningless.

>No.
Yes
>And they're both bunk.
Irrelevant

Cucktionalists are literally bluepilled.

>Amazing Cucktheist, who shouts and jumps around all the time like a retarded child
>shoe, who is literally an attention whore without anything smart or interesting to say, ever
>Sargon is probably the most normal of them all, and he is bluepilled af
>Armored Skeptic is incredibly irrelevant
>don't even know the others

>Whole point of his character is he's an atheist.
>Refers to himself as a god

Good to know he doesn't even believe in the shit he himself spouts.

>Are you so retarded as to think me distinguishing the fact it's not a big claim had something to do with you?
Do you mean to imply that strawman applied to someone else?
>I said it's a claim rendered meaningless because all it requires is the members attempt to argue based upon the merits of the argument which a fair amount of people fucking do
You didn't say that, and that's a non sequitur.
>All that matters is the merit of the argument
>Therefore the name holds no meaning

>most intelligent
>extremely basic arguments
>completely unable to understand nuance
Their usefulness is crusading against sjw's. They lack the ability to advocate for any hard policy, like the rest of the generation

Honestly do any of them ever say anything insightful?

They don't like third-wave feminism and the like freedom of speech. Kinda like the rest of the world.

What else? I mean they were lucky/smart to get on the bandwagon when they did, so now they can live off this. But lets not pretend they're some sort of intellectual powerhouse.

they're faggots that produce intellectual junk food

Subsahargon of blakkdad is a literal cuckold who is raising someone else's child.

Who makes these images? They need to fucking die

>Have free will

>Stand my own ground ideologically

>Get beheaded by Muslims

>Side with irrational christfags and nationalists

>Bitch about them later on the internet

Rationally the latter option seems the correct one.

If you were "rational" you wouldn't stand and die on a principal. You'd be fleixble and seek the best possible outcome for yourself.

Just sayin'

How did wikipedia fucked this up?

>Irrelevant
U U
U U

>One wants government regulation of what you say and do
>One wants no government regulation on what you can say
THEYRE TOTALLY THE SAME!!!!!

Even the most normal of them is a literal cuck.
Typical.

I wonder if this thread was made as a joke yet Cred Forums took it seriously

kek. Sargon and TJ are creationist-tier ignorant when it comes to fiscal issues. The rest are basically boring as shit.

These people aren't intelligent and they aren't interesting. They're just internet atheists who have run out of meanie Christians to insult, so now they're trolling other Leftists. No, they haven't transcended ideology, they are all lefties. The only difference between one of them and a SJW is that the SJWs are consistent in their ideology. If you accept the premises of the Left AT ALL, the SJWs are right.

But thanks for reminding me of the rest so I can block them.

literally this

They're all just beta atheists who bitch about blacks and dune coons only to follow the atheist jew talking points and only support Trump when their fans bitch at them enough
>Sam harris my atheist hero said vote hillary OY VEY!

>no mister metokur

If we were to only take serious threads serious then there would be about 2-3 active threads per day.

>I think it's wrong, therefore it must be wrong!
Stellar reasoning as always, Cred Forums.
the meat and potatos of horseshoe theory points out what you said earlier, that extremists on both sides of the political fence often use ruthlessly oppressive means for a "greater good", which always ends in nothing but dead people.

>They've obviously named themselves "The Rationalists" because they are actually calling themselves rationalists. This is practically indisputable

I'll dispute that
bout 2 minutes in
youtube.com/watch?v=SyaTz3p3VIQ

>posts irrelevant picture
Uhh, I guess this is fun.

>Not realizing this man is by far the most intelligent person on the planet.

These people are faggots

It being a big claim would mean it has definition in this sphere of thought which it doesn't given its a fundamental value, the distinguishing of me saying it isn't a big claim is saying that the name itself has almost no meaning as its a fundamental value a fair amount of people hold rendering it meaningless. No one tries to argue a position they themselves believe to be wrong normally unless it benefits them meaning the term rationalist as a name to show they agree that they won't try to be corrupt shit faces and just argue their fucking points is basically only an agreement of not trying to shit on each other's faces to preach an ideology.
>i can't into understanding what is being said when someone say that something isn't a big claim so I'm going to act like you are simply being dishonest when really the fact is I don't understand the expressions being used
Great to know.
>all that matters is the argument rendering the name meaningless
Yeah, like a normal non bought out forum. It's fucking meaningless. It's a sign that there is no attempt at shilling which is only there because so many people are being irrational nowadays in how they Involve themselves in politics when the fact is politics is supposed to be in the sphere of meaning that is rationality. It's about as meaningless as saying
>I'M AN EARTHEN BECAUSE I'M ON EARTH
To other people that also live on earth.

So who are these fags? I recognize that shoe on head chick, that's all I know.

Leibniz was 0retry red pilled. He planned an invasion of Egypt that Napoleon acted on and everything.

>sam "niggers better run and" hyde
>apolitical

>Shoe on head
>Amazing Atheist

Almost had me baited for a second

>Secular Liberalism completely fumbles the ball on internationalism
>Muslim hordes pour into all Western countries and continue radicalizing while forming enclaves in their communities
>Secular Liberals do literally NOTHING while bitching about feminists and video games
>Polish Christians say "lol, no" and end the problem before it begins
>WAAAAAAAAAAAAH WE DON'T WANT TO WORK WITH THE EBIL CHRISTIANS WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

Enjoy your Caliphate you fucking losers. Your worldview is now empirically inferior to ours.

>christ
>irrational
This shit has to end tbqh

>Sam harris my atheist hero
That guy is a retarded man-child. Don't atheists have anyone respectable and intelligent to look up to?

murdoch murdoch is literally x100 more redpilled than they'll ever be

Atheists who realized bashing Christians doesn't give them enough views so they moved on to feminism

At least Murdoch is finally on there.

Those animations are really poorly done but hilarious.

Cred Forums's idea of what is "serious" is mostly race and gender "debates" now. And if it's not pseudo-debates, it's a circlejerk.

Those 2-3 threads would be crywank central. So much for rationalism.

So what's the argument for the ends of the horsejew being worse than the middle?

Arrogance != intelligence

No, rationalists only exist in the two dimensional world of facts and logic. The Platonic form of me has transcended my mortal host and now practices linguistic Jeet Kune Do in the eleventh dimension of persuasion.

Oi. What are people from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala like?

They're shipping tens of thousands here starting from next year.

I only know Brazilian and Colombian fags who are alright.

>Undoomed is there despite basically just making videos where he calls them a Moron! Fuckin' Moron! and mashes low-hanging fruit (albeit with very good productions)
>Shoeonhead is there despite literally being just a cute scene girl appealing to the post-boxxy crowd who does nothing but put forward centrist platitudes in comic literal meme videos and cash in on lonely nerds

Not that I'm complaining because these models have their merits and serve a purpose but putting them forward as the vanguard of a serious political stance is retarded when they're essentially YouTube Comedians in a political wrapper

>conflating philosophical rationalism with these nu male cucks

>ctrl-f
>banana
>7 matches
come on now

>a cabal of youtubers
already sounds autistic

Do both of you guys have any arguments or just hypothetical situations and scare mongering?

reminds me of this

>Uhh
*Ugh

>I guess this is fun
>guess
>fun
BINGO!
That's the start and motivation for the creation of knowledge. By human others like us at least.

I believe this was done after they all did a stream together minus some drunk girl who is not depicted

but they are right though. They are just doing two different forms of political correctness

the debate hasn't even begun and my sides are already obliterated

Reluctant Trump supporters are Trump supporters nonetheless, so they're a step above most yt'ers I guess.

>rationalists

>Implying

>yeah these people want to silence eachother that means they're exactly the same
Go prep the bull some more, my country isn't FUBAR yet.

Probably the same as other countries affected by white imperialism: poor.

And considering how Australia is doing, that wouldn't change much.

>Hypothetical
lol. There's nothing hypothetical about what's happening here, thundercuck. Secular Liberalism is a failed ideology. It's failing before our eyes--and if it is saved, it will only be through the rise of the Right.

>David Duke
>Sam Hyde
>different people

at last, I finally see

>people getting triggered to fucking hard by centrism

God damn, son.

Being half-right isn't good enough.

Most on the right support some level of free speech though.

Some of them are okay(TJ etc) a lot of the time though they come off as blatantly misogynistic or racist which doesn't help anything, also saying you despise feminists when you mean sjws is dumb because a feminist just believes in the equality of the sexes

Hope you like crime and shitty mexican food, m80

We need to spread the word about this absolutely crazy far-right terrorist Sam Hyde, also known as "Zyklon" Ben Garrison.

I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was retarded. It's like babies first argument. It says absolutely nothing. All it does is paint a little image in your mind and go "hah! see! now you're stupid if you take either side!"

>It being a big claim would mean it has definition in this sphere of thought which it doesn't
What sphere of thought? That of youtube children? Are you implying that due to the supidity of people who watch the channel, the name/claim has no meaning?
>given its a fundamental value
What did you mean by this? It is a name/claim that is somehow a fundamental value of what?
>the distinguishing of me saying it isn't a big claim is saying that the name itself has almost no meaning
Non sequitur. Show me non-big claims necessarily have no meaning. This obviously absurd.
>as its a fundamental value a fair amount of people hold rendering it meaningless.
Ah, so you're trying to imply that a fair number of people inherently hold a definintion of "rationalism," therefore your use of it holds no meaning, therefore it hasn't been misused (in a potentially deceptive way). This is an obvious non sequitur--none of this follows.
>No one tries to argue a position they themselves believe to be wrong normally
You mean stupid people.
>unless it benefits them
Irrelevant
>meaning the term rationalist as a name to show they agree that they won't try to be corrupt shit faces and just argue their fucking points is basically only an agreement of not trying to shit on each other's faces to preach an ideology.
They could have done this without misusing the word "rationalist" to imply they're rational, because by definition they are not. And rationalism certainly doesn't imply a lack of ideology.

This part was hard enough to get through, and the rest appears to be equally or more nonsensical. I think you might be one of the dumbest people I've ever talked to; it's no surprise you're a fan.

But to some up your shitty trainwreck of a point: It seems you mean to say that the name being inaccurate doesn't matter because it portrays an inaccurate message to stupid people who have a false impression of what the word actually means, thus the name has no meanning. Holy straw-grasping Batman.

What's even the point of getting into politics if you're just going to be a someone who's dead in the Centre? It's by far the most boring of political positions and it doesn't have any hard convictions.

I didn't know we had a name now.
I guess people need names for all sorts of things even if it's literally just being able to think rationally for yourself.

Oh those are youtube celebs... armored skeptic.... shoeonhead.....oooh sargon is there too... i dont know the rest. one's probably that atheist cunt.

Empiricism and rationality are two sides of the same coin.
You cannot satisfactorily interpret empirical evidence without rationality, and you cannot come to rational conclusions without basing your ideas somewhere in actual empirical evidence.

The middle option can also be the correct one sometimes.

Banana Boy lost any credibility years ago, and Sargon sperged out the other day and spammed gay porn due to being called a nigger on Twitter. He also asked people for cp too in order to "trigger" his trolls. Not very rational.

Leibniz was one of the most intelligent men to have ever lived. don't know if that makes him "redpilled" though.

Big Head Scientist is pretty rad.

I don't believe that the alt-right exists but I am subbed to every single Alt-righter on that list except for Morrakiu & Murdoch.

What the fuck is a Libertarian Socialist? So does a Libertarian Socialist society still have redistribution policies.

Syrian Girl is a nationalistic partisan so definitely not apolitical although her views aren't representative of either side of American politics. Her views tend to piss of both the cuckservatives and the shitlibs.

Every single one of those conservatives are cuckservative or just full blown degenerate. Caroll is okay though. Sure pisses me off how the only real conservatives on youtube are all Black.

I can't stand any of those progressive faggots, they're all literal faggots. Rubin is a boring lame kike faggot & Sargon is a closet-faggot.

Do any of these people even have jobs or contribute to society besides making stupid youtube videos for a small number of teenagers and other non-contributors like themselves?

Sometimes compromise is good, but not when it comes to morality.

>>Uhh
>*Ugh
really? Kill yourself, idiot.

>thunderf00k
he's a massive annoying fuck who thinks he's superior to everyone because he has a degree.

>You cannot satisfactorily interpret empirical evidence without rationality, and you cannot come to rational conclusions without basing your ideas somewhere in actual empirical evidence.
>everything Kant says is truth
>I don't know how to think for myself, so i regurgitate ideas I've read as if they're fact
K

Well I'll tell you what TJ's Penis certainly wasn't cool while he was boiling it.

>What the fuck is a Libertarian Socialist? So does a Libertarian Socialist society still have redistribution policies.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

It's basically anarcho-communism. Workers control the means of production without a state

> leftists
> redpilled

Into the trash it goes.

>The rationalists made that deep insight before anyone else
>deep insight
>before anyone else

I can't tell if you're baiting me, but I'm pretty triggered

i like descartes, smith (the utilitarian), leibnitz and voltaire

>everything Kant says is truth
u wot
>I don't know how to think for myself, so i regurgitate ideas I've read as if they're fact
what the fuck are you even talking about.
I literally just said you need empirical evidence for shit and regurgitating ideas is not enough.
Or do you mean i regurgitated that idea above? Because no, i just wrote down what i base my life on.

Inferior to Liberal Conservativism.

>most intelligent people
>one of them is a woman
doubt.png

>le trashman.

>who named his daughter moxie crimefighter.

Into the trash this meme goes.

>Are you a follower of the rationalists?
no lol

They are beyond stupid.
All they do is champion a countervailing view, doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to "seeing through" something.

Unless you've read The Bible, Metaphysics, The Republic, Will to Power, Critique of Pure Reason, Communist Manifesto, Why War, Novum Organum, Pensees, City of God, Abolition of Man,The Wall, Brothers Karamazov, and studied history extensively beyond the John Greene memes. You can't consider yourself "seeing through" or Skeptical in any serious meaningful sense.

They're just the anti-thesis of something.

These people are clowns masquerading as professionals.

Judge a man by his enemies, their enemies are SJWs.....that should tell you enough about them.

Anyone can shoot a barn, only a real marksman can nail a rattler at 200M.

"Not bluepilled" is not the same as "redpilled" you stupid faggots

There's nothing bunk about rationalism. One can be an entirely consistent rationalist, and there are no back-breaking problems with rationalism like there are with, say, empiricism.

I like The Amazing Atheist a lot; he's one of my favorite Youtubers, but I've never watched the rationalists before.
I'm going to check them out right away. :)

Is it really necessary to have endless e-celebrity threads?

You implied that 1) rationalism and empiricism are necessary for each other, and that thus 2) they are mutually inclusive
This seems like some Kant idea on which you didn't think much yourself. The first implication is easily disputable and the second doesn't follow from the first.

Empiricists would never and should never call themselves rationalists.

The sphere of thought that is politics you retarded cuck. Great to know at this point you've abandoned any possibility of an actual argument and are now just trying to ad hominem. Politics inhabits the sphere of rationality.
>I'm so retarded hur during what are fundamentals
Rationality is a fundamental principles of politics
>I'm going to act like I didn't read the example given
Here's anther example, a Christian at a church in which you must be Christian to enter starts telling people he's religious. It's that fucking meaningless.
>I'm going to once again act like I don't understand fundamentals and instead misconstrued something into "Oh so it means blah blah to them is your argument"
>you mean stupid people
Stupid people also normally argue for what they believe to be right, just as intellectuals. I don't see how this irrelevancy even means anything.
>irrelevant
Yes that whole section didn't have to do with the core aspect of the argument. That part was fleshing out the dynamics of argumentation cuckold.
>they misused the word rational and that's my whole argument
Lol no, not all of them have forms of irrational bias and plenty of people you personally believe to be rational do hold irrational bias, do note this doesn't have to be politics itself to hold meaning, they could be irrational on eating tomatoes and by your definition that would make them irrational. Rationality has to do with a type of logic which is to be participated in, it's not a character trait.

Good goy, don't think for yourself.

>really?
*Really?

Kant was full of shit, synthetic a priori ...JUST

They're just shills and fags.

>fear-mongering
>with-us-or-against-us mentality
>thinks he's somehow different from a Islamist goat-fucker he hates
In every instance anybody on the end of the horseshoe has taken power, lots of people have died, without exception. WW2, the holodomor, take your pick.
Extreme ideologies have no room for dissent or disagreement in their world view. Every opponent of said ideology must be either crazy (e.g "False" Conciousness) or a liar (e.g the ever exanding Jewish "conspiracy").
While comforting to the beliver, it means a practitioner can't just look at people who disagree with him and shrug. He must remove them, convince them, or initiate force against them.

[spoiler] But please, dismiss my argument as "brain-washed" or "blue-pilled". Buzzwords are easy. [/spoiler]

I dunno, it's really a BANANA split.

Look up logical positivism. The divide between rationalism and empiricism was a 17th century distinction.

>all dem spelling errors
Tbh I quit giving a shit once I saw you where going to misconstrued everything and make that your argument so I didn't correct the Autocorrect fuck ups. Have a good day you irrational strawmanning cuckold.

They're irreconcilable aussie.
See the problem of induction as one point of reference as to why.

>This seems like some Kant idea on which you didn't think much yourself.
I wouldn't know about that i dislike Kant and haven't really read much of his work after coming upon the staggering .... mess that was his moral philosophy.

1) Dispute it then.
a) prove that you can interpret empirical data without rationality
b) prove that you can be always rational without having empirical data.

2) They are kinda mutually inclusive, although I never directly said that.
What is empiricism if not the rational observation of the universe? Any irrational observation is not empirical as far as i know.
And what is rationality but following the logic the empirically observable universe seems to follow?

The guy that started that was a heroin junkie who went to jail for getting his 15 year old gf pregnant. Used to somewhat know him. No idea what goes on there anymore.

t. Uneducated faggot

If they don't see through trannies and Jews they aren't that fucking rational.

wait what

It's bunk on using justification and induction. See Popper.
Insofar as it's using conjecture, criticism, non-vague explanations, falsifiability (just for science, though). No problem there.

>The sphere of thought that is politics you retarded cuck.
So in politics, "rationalism" has no meaning. K.
>are now just trying to ad hominem.
I may have called you stupid once or twice, but that doesn't constitute ad hominem as I never said or implied you're wrong because you're stupid (even though that's likely the case).
>Politics inhabits the sphere of rationality.
Politics is a subset of rationalist? K.
>Rationality is a fundamental principles of politics
K.
>a Christian at a church in which you must be Christian to enter starts telling people he's religious. It's that fucking meaningless.
Oh okay, so the misuse of the name "The Rationalistis" is meaningless because their viewers also incorrectly identify as rationalists... K.
>That part was fleshing out the dynamics of argumentation
I'm starting to think you're stroking out the whole time you're typing, or that you have some kind of autistic aphasia.
>Rationality has to do with a type of logic which is to be participated in, it's not a character trait.
It's clear you also don't know what "rationalist" means. Please go look it up, you stupid kid.

I'm not sure I will keep replying to you because I think you legit might be retarded and the thought of making you wrong or hurting your feelings makes me feel sad inside.

The asterisk goes after the correction, not before.

>The rationalists, a cabal of youtubers, seem to me to be the most intelligent people on the planet.

whew ladd

I claim you can be both, you can have knowledge (eg mathematics) which is not based on things out in the world, but to have knowledge of the world you must rely on sense data.
Suppose you are an empiricist, you believe in the principle of induction, this can only be on a priori grounds.

I know several people with more degrees than thunderf00t and more international reputation than thunderf00t, and possibly more publications than thunderf00t, who are less arrogant, condescending, and militant about their views, especially on things they really really aren't experts on.

>JUST
Probably the best critique of his reasoning I've ever seen there m8

Protip: There's no such thing as the alt-right, stop propagating this tired liberal meme.

>you can have knowledge (eg mathematics) which is not based on things out in the world,
Inherent problem.
Mathematics is built on axioms which you observe in the real world.

After much deliberation he had decided he would vote for Benis Sandbags

>who are less arrogant, condescending, and militant about their views, especially on things they really really aren't experts on.

maybe they should be more like thunderfoot

>The divide between rationalism and empiricism was a 17th century distinction
Their being divided or not is irrelevant to what I said. Also, "Current year!"

*Empiricism* is bunk on induction. Rationalism doesn't care about induction.

>anti-SJW liberals
>redpilled

The axioms may be inspired by the world and our experiences but they are not contingent upon them. Suppose the world was completely different, our initial deductions from the first set of axioms would remain sound.

>but to have knowledge of the world you must rely on sense data
No. You can know things a priori without sense data.
You're not a rationalist if you don't hold that.
Empiricsts have to reject rational justification for their belief in the validity of inductive reasoning in order to be a rationalist (because pic related *does not fly* for a rationalist). But if you do that, *you're not an empiricist*.

It's like calling a group of kids who eat in the corner of your high school cafeteria the most popular and then defining popular by most well thought out position in relationship with every other person

No and there's nothing rational about them

Look at Bertrand Russell he held both empiricist and rationalist view points. The old divide doesn't make sense considering developments in philosophy, science and mathematics.

Rationalism isn't centrism it's just philosophical autism. They analyze studies and statistics missing the forest for the trees every time. They try to stay aloof by refraining from taking any hard positions because "there could always be more data" but that's more like being noncommittal than centrism. Problem is politics cannot be addressed purely be reason and statistics since it deals with the lives and desires of human beings.

the argument is sound in their youtube video when its fully edited but when they have to ''rationalize'' on the spot their fuckin worthless

that shows their not quick on the mark they cant be that smart also side note the only apply logic of state education into their level ground argument so its already selective and unreasonable to begin with.

that pic has nothing but tossers and the only person thats rational in the line of work like jewtube would be angry joe i mean come on the only logical emotion from that amount of bullshit from youtube would be anger

or amazing atheist but he isn't even bothered sometimes to show up in his videos and he shoved a banana up his ass so he cant be that ''logical''

>1) Dispute it then.
>a) prove that you can interpret empirical data >without rationality
>b) prove that you can be always rational >without having empirical data.

Come on senpai, be real. Do you honestly think he is going to argue with you in anyway other than shitty critique without solid answers?

he's clearly projecting right when he said

>I don't know how to think for myself, so i regurgitate ideas I've read as if they're fact

All you're going to get out of him essentially is

>"No you're wrong and stupid"

If ever there were a time to unironically post

>not an argument

it would be now.

>muh feelings are special
You can rationally discuss human values, motives, and dispositions. Your feelings are not some super arcane mysterious force of the universe by which you can reflect any kind of talk you don't like/understand on the grounds of.

All these retarded normalfags jesus christ.

This guy right here. He is the hero.

On youtube since 240p combating creationism with science.

Actual scientist with science hobbies.
They dox him.
Send his employers shit about how hes a right wing nazi nutt.
Nobody gives a fuck because his scientist friends totally back him up and he never gets fired because they actually agree with him.

Every one of his "opponents" has crumbled into dust and decay he has outlived them all from the Creationists of the mid 2000 to the SJWs today. He will outlast them too.

Oh and the doxers? They actually got fired from their jobs after being doxed by other mad people later unrelated to Thunderf00t.

And pull down the entire scientific community to the level of smug fucking bastards who talk condescendingly about topics they don1t know much about in, thus disgruntling every single scientist and effectively making all scientists hate their jobs?

No thanks.

No because the first set of axioms would be different.
The thing is that imagining a rationality completely disconnected from our empirical world is impossible, because our imaginations are limited by our empirical world.
Both physically and in information processing.

>You can know things a priori without sense data.
Prove it (which you can't)

>You're not a rationalist if you don't hold that.
It's not rational to limit the members of a group defined by a common word to only those who adhere to some standards disconnected from the meaning of the word.
In other words it's not rational to say that "rationalists are only those who [anything that isn't about being rational]"

>But if you do that, *you're not an empiricist*.
By your definition.

>cucks

the banana in the ass guy? wtf this one is a retarded

>not being a metaphysical realist
Have fun believing those trees magically disappear when no one's around to observe them.
I'll be over here not being a loony~

This is one of the worst pictures I think I've ever seen. The "red pill" anti-sjw whatever the you wanna call them clique on youtube are no different than fedora tipping athiests of old under a different name. In fact I'm pretty sure most of them (TJ being the obvious one) were a part of that community first.

fuck, society is so retarded that now even cartoon faggots have to take selfies

I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt you know.

He's also a cunt, dear neighbor.

then why dont you freely let sjws spout their sjw shit?

How people like the banana fucker is beyond me. All he does is strawman his way in the discussion.

...

Pfffffff, faggot wannabes who know nothing.

Cunt or not, his science checks out and over the last 10 years he outlasted everyone else. Cunt or not... I've been following him before I ever knew about SJWs or 2011 happened with all of this shit we're swiming in now on the internet.

>a) prove that you can interpret empirical data without rationality
There could be no such thing as interpretation. The mind is a tabula rasa and the world literally makes the mind.
>b) prove that you can be always rational without having empirical data.
It's possible if God gives us knowledge, otherwise I may think not. If it were the case that rational thought were impossible without empirical observation, that would not show that they were not distinct.

>What is empiricism if not the rational observation of the universe?
This doesn't show that rationalism is necessarily a deterministic consequence of observation.

>And what is rationality but following the logic the empirically observable universe seems to follow?
The existence of logical constants neither shows that rationalism is necessarily a deterministic consequence of observation.

We do. We just laugh at them.

The problem is you are not specifying what knowledge pertains to. Is it knowledge of the world or knowledge of formal truths such as mathematics? I claim that you can be both a rationalist and an empiricist, by claiming that all knowledge of the world comes from experience whereas other knowledge such as the knowledge of mathematics does not depend on experience.

>about topics they don1t know much about in

which topics specifically are you referring to?

thats basically what they do its really wormish to be honest

Empiricism as in "knowledge comes from the senses or experience" is bunk altogether. Again. Popper.

Empiricism as in, science is tested by observation, not derived from it, yes. Just keep in mind the act of observing and what you observe is theory laden as well.

>Rationalism doesn't care about induction.
Right, I misread intuition as induction. Intuition enters the rational mind to be criticized as well, which is good. Reflex is well- subconscious but can be consciously trained.

I guess what I think is good is being rational/reasonable with the ever present thought of "(How) can I be wrong?".

When I first saw this thread, I didn't look close enough at the pic, so I didn't even make the connection the so-called rationalists was this group of retards. Who gave them this monicker anyway?

>They cherry pick arguments which fit their narrative

from what I've seen too, all they ever do is tackle the most ridiculous/strawman version of actual arguments and "counter" those. Sure, the few videos I've seen they do tackle actual popular points of view, but they go after low hanging fruit and never tackle arguments made by people who are actually smart. finding the flaws in the popular rhetoric of any sufficiently large group is not much of an accomplishment. Average people are bad at making arguments and that gets reflected in the popular version of any rhetoric, because often any amount of nuance is long gone and what remains lacks substance.

I've seen very little of any of these clowns videos. Sargon seemed like the only one who puts in actual effort to understanding the opposing side and deconstructing it, but I don't think he struck any new or interesting idea or made any kind of novel arguments, at least in what I saw. I can just keep browsing Cred Forums if I want to hear watered down versions of actual arguments

Any knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge. You cannot be both a rationalist and empiricist because the commitment you have to make in order to believe that you can gain knowledge via induction (which requires experience) is *IRRATIONAL*. It requires viciously circular reasoning to justify. That is *fundamentally* incompatible with rationalism. See pic related once again. You need that for empiricism, while simultaneously it is completely incompatible with rationalism.

Popper's falsification didn't get him out of the problem of induction. You can't falsify something without induction, and induction is still bunk.

>creationism defies science
Wewing right in my fucking lads, fedora.
youtube.com/watch?v=0FmO2XKMe6g

If you considered highlighting how retarded people are in the mental asylum as some intellectual challenge.

That is the whole SJW thing. The only reason I think it even exists is because it gets views. So it essentially just feeds itself.

>metaphysical realist
Contradiction.
Metaphysical things can't be proven to be real.
Anyway i have no idea what you would call it, but i'm a.... pragmatist? occamist? maybe?
The trees might very well not exists, but using occam's razor the easiest explanation for them being there again when someone is observing is to assume they are still there.
Ultimately nothing at all can be proven because direct experience itself can not go (and perhaps not even reach) "i think therefore i am".
However, the easiest solution until something contradicts it is to assume that reality is real.

>his science checks out
Except when he's too busy making sneering commentary on something to check whether the assumptions he makes judging things are sound.
I'm talking specifically about his videos where he is debunking shit.

>The mind is a tabula rasa and the world literally makes the mind.
Is there anything empirical about this? Can we observe and or know this?
>It's possible if God gives us knowledge
is that knowledge then not empirical?
>that would not show
Perhaps not identical, but one cannot exist without the other.
>is necessarily a deterministic consequence of observation.
>is necessarily a deterministic consequence of observation.
It isn't since we're not talking about consequences we're talking about identities.
rationality is a part of empiricism. (and vice versa)

Sargon is not rational, he likes to think he is but he is a marxist pleb in reality.

And this

It's nice to see the phropet ALEXANDER JANHAS THE ASCENDING UBERMENSCH here!

>AA
>Sceptic
>Marxgon
>Shoe0ntits

>rational

TL:DR's alright.

>tfw extreme centralist

I was born with a heart filled with neutrality. When I die, tell my wife's son Hello

>metaphysical things cant be proven
>he's fallen for the jewish lies that have closed his third eye

I reject the notion that people's thoughts have any affect on whether or not there is objectively a divide between rationalism and empiricism.

>"unproven"/not knowing of a way to prove something (whatever that means) to be real = not real
Great "logic". You tried senpai.

Brother john is talking on this subject now. Live stream.

I like Sargon at times, but he's a total marxist in denial.

Seems like a nice guy to chill with, though.

Suppose the principle of induction was clear a priori, i.e. as a result of some rational faculty, but all other knowledge of the world was a result of sense data and this principle, would you consider that person an empiricist or a rationalist?
Furthermore there is clearly a difference between the knowledge that there are infinitely many prime numbers and the speed of light in a vacuum.

He's a nuclear physicist.
I assume with some particular field in applied nuclear physics since he seems to be working in reactors.

Yet he keeps talking about everything from not yet extant RTGs, over creationist arguments, to global warming, social issues and chemistry.

A proof is something someone else can use to completely follow your experience and have few doubts about its authenticity.

>"unproven"/not knowing of a way to prove something (whatever that means) to be real = not real
what exactly are you even talking about here.

I mean i just specifically said that i assume some non-provable things to be real, because no experience i have contradicts this, and this is the easiest explanation.

>because our imaginations are limited by our empirical world.
This presupposes empiricism. You don't actually know that the mind can be reduced to nothing but consequences of empirical data.

He is a physical chemist

THERE'S EXTREMISM...... ON BOTH SIDES, YOU SAY??????????

PERHAPS
>THE
>ANSWER
>LIES
>IN
>THE
>MIDDLE

Thunderf00t lost all credibility over the Brexit thing.

What a butthurt faggot.

>>metaphysical realist
>Contradiction
>Metaphysical things can't be proven to be real

You are implying that metaphysical realism is self-contradictory because metaphysical things "cannot be proven to be real".
But whether or not they can or can't be proven is actually irrelevant, since being or not being able to prove something as actually being the case has absolutely 0 relation to that something's truth value. So your logic is completely retarded - your conclusion (that metaphysical realism is self-contradictory) does not follow from your premises.

Jesus christ dude

Still waiting for TJ's debate with Ryan Faulk

No, the answer lies in removing the stigma away from this "extremism" and going back to right and wrong.
There's nothing that needs to be given when your extreme is a good extreme.

Was posting interracial gay porn all over the internet part of that insight?

It's not clear a priori.
Induction itself necessarily relies on the a posteriori, and its validity is not known a priori.
You do not know a priori that the uniformity principle is true.

>Is there anything empirical about this?
Yes
>is that knowledge then not empirical?
Yes
>but one cannot exist without the other.
A different claim and begs the question.
>well then show me...
Argument from ignorance and shifting of burden of proof
The burden of proof would lie on you to show they can't exist without each other, WITHOUT presupposing the conclusion.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/#KarPopVieInd

Induction only bunk in science, other stuff it's used a shortcut, not even as the best way too.

For example: Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. Is it a duck? The answer doesn't depend on likeability.

Why not? I may claim that I see it to be true just as you may see "I think therefore I am" to be the case. Perhaps you simply lack the same rational faculty?
I don't see why it cannot be known a priori?

It's often in the application of ideas by the common folk, not the intellectual justifications that cause two opposing sides to blend.

Quite a number of people involved in identity politics only understand the ideology of their "side" insofar as it justifies their beliefs and behavior. It becomes less about the supposed arguments and more about weaponizing the arguments to claim their side as good and villainize the other side. When these subgroups become too loud and drown out the main groups, there really is very little difference between what remains. The whole lot of identity politics is a cancer because of this.

That doesn't mean there aren't legitmate underlying ideological differences, just that if you have loud, ignornant people claiming to represent that ideology, well, there really isn't much of a difference in behavior and what they appear to be trying to achieve (victory for their side and defeat of the other).

Why the fuck are they called "the rationalists"? The rationalists are those who believe reason alone trumps empirical data. Rationalism is a philosophical term, do not dilute the meaning.

These men are not rationalists, they are wishy-washy cucks.

>Suppose the principle of induction was clear a priori,
But this is not the case.

>This presupposes empiricism.
Everything we know of follows empirical rationality. = observable outcomes acts according to causality.
So there is no reason to assume that empiricism isn't true. And per occams razor this is the easiest still correct explanation, thus we should use this.

>You don't actually know that the mind can be reduced to nothing but consequences of empirical data.
It is very likely that it is though.

Oh that's news.
Either way he's still a cunt.

I wouldn't say that.
He is just as per usual too convinced of his own infallibility/superiority to actually consider other standpoints.

It might not be related to it's ultimate truth value, but it is related to it being real. If something can not be proven to exist, AND it is the easier way to assume that it doesn't, then it cannot be considered real.
Metaphysics per definition only concerns itself with things that can't really be proven to have any connection to reality at this point in time, so calling yourself a metaphysical realist is like saying:
I like to think realistically about things that aren't realistic.

youtube.com/watch?v=O0aXHJ8Mfw0

>David duke
>Alt right

What the fuck is the alt right seriously? Are they just every ancient white supremacist group around the globe? How can you children be so arrogant as to think YOU'RE the one to coin this "new" movement?

>le banana in rectum man is suddenly based
What a world we live in

>the middle option is wrong sometimes therefore it is always wrong

You guys are being just as retarded as someone who thinks the middle option is always right. Believeing extremism is always right or the middle option is always right are both fallacies. Just face facts, sometimes the best answer isn't to go full nazi or commie.

>we're not talking about consequences we're talking about identities
>rationality is a part of empiricism. (and vice versa)
Identities are consequences, silly. You can't just imply "They are metaphysical identities therefore I don't have to show of what this epistemology is a consequence."

youtube.com/watch?v=EDzd6uyiKQg

shoe is fucking hot

The drawing was to commemorate a live stream they all did together.

Rationalism is nihilism disguised. Fuck your fucking cancer.

Nice.

I'm very familiar with Karl Popper mane. I had essentially a whole course on him during undergrad.
He tried very very hard to get out of the muck of demarcation and the problem of induction. In the end though he still feel very short.

>Why not
OK, so explain to me how "nature is (necessarily) uniform" is something I come to a priori in like fashion to how I know that there are such things as thoughts, or like 1+1=2, when nature is not known to me before my senses, let alone what the qualities or not-qualities of nature even are.

Bullshit induction doesn't rely on present or past and this world is not uniform.

is it ever? when has being exxxxtreme benefited anyone and not ran their country into the ground?

forgot pic

>but it is related to it being real
No. That's wrong. It's not. Whether or not you can prove God exists is irrelevant to whether or not He actually is real or not. It is absolutely and totally irrelevant - that goes for every single possible claim with a truth value.

>Yes
what?
>Yes
If a god gives you a knowledge that isn't empirical it is not based on empirical facts.
That means it is unrelated to reality.
And you cannot get the basics of rationality as you know it without knowing things about reality.
>different claim
the claim was never that they are identical.

They can not exist without one another as per their definition.

If you observe something and are not rational you no empirical knowledge, because empirical knowledge is ordered information, and order without rationality is impossible.

If you try to be rational you are using axioms, and causality. Both are things that you have to have empirical data about before you can apply them.

>Identities are consequences, silly.
what.

Love me some Skeptic and Sh0e

identities are matters of definition consequences are matters of causality.

I disagree.
You can not talk about something as a real thing if its realness is not proven.

You cannot be a REAList presupposing things that have a high chance of NOT being real.

>Hero
>Globalist, pro-estashblishment, pro-immigration, remainer

Nope

So when I make a prediction about the future weather based on what I've experienced about weather in the past and how I'm experiencing it now in the present, you're telling me... that there's no inductive reasoning involved in that whatsoever.
Or when I program a computer, I don't do so with the expectation - based on past experiences - that my inputs won't produce the same outputs as they have in the past despite replicating virtually identical conditions that produced results in the past.

True, I guess a better way of saying it is sometimes picking a side isn't the right choice. Just because sometimes choosing a third option doesn't work doesn't mean there is never a third option. Always picking a third option and never picking a third option because you think it can't be right are both illogical beliefs.

His recent twitter freak out really made me dislike Sargon.

>Everything we know of follows empirical rationality.
Still presupposes empiricism.
>So there is no reason to assume that empiricism isn't true.
Argument from ignorance
>And per occams razor this is the easiest still correct explanation
Not when there's more than one equivolently simple possibilities. Occam's razor also can't say anything about truth, but only pragmatism. People who try to use it to show things are true, are idiots.
>It is very likely that it is though.
Oh yeah? How likely? Very very likely? Super duper likely?

sometimes that skeptic faggot make me cringe, i am the only who feel this way?

You can't disagree with that. If something exists and is real, it is real *REGARDLESS* of whether or not you believe, think, or otherwise feel like that thing either has or has not been proven.

If you have not proven some child was born in India thirty seconds ago, that has *ABSOLUTELY* no relevance to whether he was or not.
This is pathetically simple and basic logic.

this

wait i think i get what you mean.

if rationality only means applying a given set f axioms you could theoretically get those axioms a priori and apply them

however a priori things don't exist in reality.
so in reality you cannot be a pure rationalist

I don't need to explain it, perhaps some minds are simply incapable of grasping this truth?
Of course I dont believe that but you do see the weakness with your dogmatic old school rationalism now?
Furthermore as polish user has mentioned, popper and co. Have removed the problem of induction from the minds of most modern philosophers of science.

>I don't need to explain it, perhaps some minds are simply incapable of grasping this truth?
This answer is literally embracing absolutely blind faith.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but usually you empiricists treat that word quite literally as if it were a deadly virus.

They all make me cringe, fellow white man.