I can see the issue you have in mind, and interesting though it might be, it isn't what I was concerned with. I take Kants' assertion that rationalism ends up in Spinozism, and ultimately atheism, to be addressing what he though to be merely it's inevitable logical conclusion.

Whether we would find ourselves convinced by Spinozism and atheism would depend firstly on whether we accepted rationalist first principles, secondly on whether we were convinced that Spinozism and atheism were in fact inevitable logic concomitants of rationalist first principles, and thirdly on whether we were the sort of people whose beliefs are ultimately determined by logical arguments.

As to the third, I suppose it might be fair to say that if we were the kind of people who accepted rationalist first principles, then we would find our beliefs determined by rational arguments, so it's really back to the second condition; whether or not we find the logic train of though leading to that conclusion consistent.

Hume is one of my favorites — Terrapin Station

Hume is one of my least favorites. I've started a thread and I'm hoping fans of Hume will come answer a question for me and join the discussion.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6682/what-advance-in-epistemological-or-metaphysical-knowledge-did-david-hume-bring-us

Why is Hume seen so highly by Academics, and yet it doesn't trickle down to us amateurs? — Agustino

I'm not a fan of David Hume. I started a thread about Hume and would love for you to join the conversation.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6682/what-advance-in-epistemological-or-metaphysical-knowledge-did-david-hume-bring-us

Hume was a one-trick pony. — lambda

I am not a fan of Hume. I just started a thread on Hume and I'm hoping that both fans and anti-fans would come join the conversation.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6682/what-advance-in-epistemological-or-metaphysical-knowledge-did-david-hume-bring-us