Obvious rule: most people, no matter what they say, do not and cannot have throngs of followers. Followers are necessarily many and leaders are necessarily few in number.
Rule: Most people who speak nonsense are not listened to, especially if they are certifiably insane, if they lack conviction, or if what they say is clearly recognizable as nonsense.
Exception: some people who speak a whole lot of nonsense, dressed up in the guise of sense, and particularly those who speak nonsense with great passion, have throngs of eager followers. Historical example: Hitler.
Rule: Those who speak sense are mostly not listened to. Historical example: Socrates, although, of course, I do not expect many people to think he was speaking sense. You have to know these things.
Exceptions: Occasionally, those who speak sense are sometimes listened to, at least by a few people, if only because of random chance (a broken clock is right twice a day) and the fact that man, while obviously foolish, is not a total fool.
What do we make of mankind’s most admired people who all have throngs of eager followers?
People like Jesus, Mohammed, and Shakespeare (his throngs of eager followers are mostly academics)?
By rule, they probably spoke a whole lot of nonsense to merit such large throngs following them.
But maybe one or more of this rather large group of “most admired people” is an exception to the rule.
How can we hope to know? To know, one would have to be a person who does not speak a whole lot of nonsense, and one would have next to no followers. To guess, one just has to be lucky.
Highly unlikely aside: what if I ever had a whole lot of followers?
This is a little different: in following me and my advice, they would only be saying that “I believe in nothing at all that is flat out contradicted by reliable evidence; I believe in nothing absolutely, not even what is in science textbooks – that is, I believe propositions to the degree that they are supported by reliable evidence.”
Again, it is a little different. I have no separate teachings per se and my principles are those of science, though so many have studied science for many years and never fully grasped what it is saying. Like Richard Dawkins, they think that science is a system of firmly held beliefs that oppose religious beliefs. The opposition to religion in 2017 is a result of science having been and always being what it really is – skeptical to its core, rejecting what is contradicted by reliable evidence, and only slowly coming around to what is supported by reliable evidence.