On a forum I'm on about cults, a bloke has got angry at David Icke being mocked, and he has started a thread on James Randi being a cult guru!
Well I'm relatively new to all this but I suspect you've heard it all before :)
So, are 'we'/Randi-ists brainwashed? :o
Love
Kath
That old chestnut. Woos often claim that skepticism is a religion, because, I think, they have difficulty understanding how anyone could possibly live without one. (True woos that is, not the outright frauds.)
The reality is that cult leaders require their followers to believe in their claims without providing convincing evidence, whereas Randi wants everyone, not just his supporters, to do quite the opposite.
How anyone can believe the crap that David Icke spouts is quite beyond me.
Also worth pointing out that people often correct Randi, through letters or on the forum, or disagree with how he get's things done (I personally feel he can get a tad 'aggessive' at times). Neither of which would be accepted by a cult leader.
JR does have a personality cult following if you take the meaning of the word literally, and he is also a guru in the general sense.
It's the religious connotation which makes me want to squirm - and if I'm brainwashed then I've somehow managed to do it to myself... :D
One thing to bear in mind is that many people could be accused of being in Randi's cult without even knowing who he is. I only heard of Randi a few moths ago, but my views on the paranormal are still exactly the same. What the woos fail to understand is that we agree with Randi (usually) because we think the same things, we don't think those things because that's what Randi says.
Randi does not own, and did not invent, critical thinking and skepticism. Also these tools do not force the content of your views directly (unlike woowoo), they merely point you in a direction highly likely to be less wrong.
Also this blokes' criticisms are aimed at things Randi has said/done on a professional level. Most 'gurus'/cults aren't set up like that.
They coerce people in an emotional and personal way, involved with peoples' relationships and such.
Financially they do a real hard sell -'you need to do this course or you will never make much money or have the relationship you want.' Not just selling products or receiving donations, manipulating people into it.
They also often exploit their followers in erm, other ways :o
A real destructive guru as opposed to a person promoting a type of thought, uses
1) coercion or manipulation
2) exploitation
I've no doubt Randi is a 'character' but I don't know of him doing this. He seems to keep a level of distance, unless he is more involved personally in the states, or was when he was in better health.
Love
Kath
Kath, I spent over a decade working as a banker. Amongst the thousands of customers I encountered, a fair few were parted from their cash, often to a disastrous degree, by fraudsters and con artists. I can't legally provide any specific details but, I can assure you that some cases were truly upsetting to handle. I despise the bastards who can inflict such misery upon their fellow beings.
That's what Randi's about; doing what he can to prevent the gullible being fleeced by the criminal and/or deluded. I admire and support him for doing so. If this bloke can't see the difference between what Randi does and what the scientologists, for example, do, he either has a hidden agenda or is a fool.
The Randi thread is locked, it got too OT and heated :D People have very strong feelings about these issues for some reason :o
It is indeed an old chestnut this claim.
I think many woos spend an inordinate amount of their time attempting to discredit skeptics and skepticism.
To me, that is a sign that they know they are wrong in their thinking.
.
Indeed. Ad homs are always a sign that the speaker does not have a valid argument to support their position.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks