A poll for atheists. Without looking, do you know the difference between rationalism and empiricism?

Anyone can be both rationalist with regard to some things in life and empiricist with regard to other things in life. We just need to take a pragmatic approach and use the right -ism required for the job. The real problem seems to be that some people are like the guy with a hammer who cannot recognize that a screw is not the same as a nail. Like you for instance...

I've never claimed to "follow" either and I suspect that I have generally used both rational and empirical appropriately. I'm not much of one for "ism"s.

Come to think of it, while I have seen a great deal of answers referencing rational thought and empirical methods/evidence, I have seen very few that talk about "rationalism and empiricism", perhaps you should learn the difference.

I believe empiricism is building on the past as in evidence or even thought--it could be based in fact or belief, but it is at least a basis

Rational thought is simply sane thought based based on some sort of rule system. I suppose it's based in logic, as long as the rule system is neutral

You can be a purest and be either a rationalist or an empiricist, or be an eclecticist and select what ever you agree on in either school of thought and combine it. Which is what must non- philosophers( and some philosophers) do. Plus you are free to label your views as you wish.So you can see that one can easily be both depending on the view.

The difference is the source of truth/knowledge.

I doubt you hear many athiests delcare themselves follwers of both. Instead you interpret their arguments that way. If you are a rationalist, you can still make empirical arguments.

I had a general idea, but I do confess that I looked it up for clarification:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empi...

In case anyone else is interested.

Well I don't know what empiricism is, so I can't really say.

Rationalism is learning through thought and study, empirism is learning through experience, both personal and historical.

Thank you for proving that atheists are liars and are wrong.

yes of course. and one can be a ''follower'' (as you put it) of both, at least Immanuel Kant could.