lol
There would be if any of those things were actually said.
You guys clearly don't know your subject or are deliberately lying.
So you've been to every AA group on the planet? Or you know for a fact that AA groups do not vary at all?
Why do people insist AA is not religious?/Efficacy of AA & other treatment programs
- Thread starter Nanny Ogg
- Start date
- Status
So you've been to every AA group on the planet? Or you know for a fact that AA groups do not vary at all?
Belz...
Fiend God
Don't make this personal. The point is that addiction is not a disease: it's a habit, one that is decidedly intentional.
Are you agreeing with me ?
Since one of the twelve steps involves abdicating to a higher power, I think "effort" doesn't quite cut it.
Making them think that god made them quit is very, very dangerous, and false.
Belz...
Fiend God
Fixed that for you.
God doesn't exist. Therefore he is weaker than any extant entity.
Belz...
Fiend God
lol
There would be if any of those things were actually said.
You guys clearly don't know your subject or are deliberately lying.
Tsig, where was it in this thread you pointed out an apparent contradiction? I would like to clarify it for you if possible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tPNgHrIkgo
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
Good point. You are correct, I don't know what happens at every group, and they do vary in line with their individual structures. What I do know is that everyone in AA has their own opinion and their own recovery. The steps and traditions outline the 'rules', of which there are none.
In your opinion, but the experts disagree with you.
To a point. There is plenty that can be done, it is a matter of being prepared to do it. Powerless (to me) refers to what happens after the first drink. I cannot guarantee my behaviour.
Not quite, the 12 steps suggest that a higher power can restore us to sanity. This is not abdication in the terms you put it.
No-one makes anyone do anything. If they choose to believe that, that is just fine.
By the way, it may be false, but how is it dangerous?
Fair enough. But again, you are banging on about a god that does not come into a lot of AAs thinking and recovery.
A power greater than myself - say, the group of drunks - is more powerful than me, and can help restore me to sanity (i.e. get sober).
eta, I will try and look at you video tonight.
Cheers
Last edited:
godofpie
Chief Cook & Bottle Washer
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2008
- Messages
- 950
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
Now I'm just disappointed
; Penn and Teller! Meh, why didn't you put on the South Park episode instead? Are you saying the opinions of a couple of entertainers outweigh the collective wisdom of the World Health Authority, Addiction recovery industry leaders etc?
Belz...
Fiend God
Great. So having people around you to help is good. Point stands.
Belz...
Fiend God
Now I'm just disappointed
Are you saying the opinions of a couple of entertainers outweigh the collective wisdom of the World Health Authority, Addiction recovery industry leaders etc?
Ad hominem. Strawman.
Do you have any actual comment on the CONTENT of the video ?
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
Why not run a whole stack of entertainers to support their point? I could show you some Billy Connelley that has a different perspective. Hmm, who to believe?
Oh! I know, maybe someone who is qualified to make a determination like the AMA, World Health Organisation et al and not some (supposed) psychologist who supports their view
Maybe Penn and Teller don't think cancer is a disease either, they say they do in the video and draw direct comparisons - curiously the Health Organisations all over the world do think both cancer and alcoholism disease. Hmm, Penn and Teller don't. Who to believe?
So, are they qualified to comment?
Sure, just as much as any other lay person. But in their opening they make a point of outlining they know eff all about it.
Does that mean they are correct and their opinion overrides that of the leading health organisations?
Um...., no.
I will watch Penn and Teller for entertainment, not the science of addiction and disease.
Cheers.
Oh! I know, maybe someone who is qualified to make a determination like the AMA, World Health Organisation et al and not some (supposed) psychologist who supports their view
Maybe Penn and Teller don't think cancer is a disease either, they say they do in the video and draw direct comparisons - curiously the Health Organisations all over the world do think both cancer and alcoholism disease. Hmm, Penn and Teller don't. Who to believe?
So, are they qualified to comment?
Sure, just as much as any other lay person. But in their opening they make a point of outlining they know eff all about it.
Does that mean they are correct and their opinion overrides that of the leading health organisations?
Um...., no.
I will watch Penn and Teller for entertainment, not the science of addiction and disease.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/alcoholism
Wow!
Even the APA reckon it doesn't matter if one is religious or not.
and
http://www.medicinenet.com/alcohol_abuse_and_alcoholism/article.htm
And this, definitions updated in 2008
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/388/statementuad.pdf
So much for Penn and Teller.
Wow!
Even the APA reckon it doesn't matter if one is religious or not.
and
http://www.medicinenet.com/alcohol_abuse_and_alcoholism/article.htm
And this, definitions updated in 2008
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/388/statementuad.pdf
So much for Penn and Teller.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
You don't have a choice whether you have a disease or not. Alcoholism is a choice. Just like eating disorders. If you claim they are a disease then you remove responsability from yourself.
No wonder they seek a higher power...
If Alcoholism is a disease then so is every hobby when it becomes addictive. The definition of disease becomes so vague as to be unusable and meaningless.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
You are half right here.
Alcoholism is not a choice, drinking is. One will rarely know of they are going to be an alcoholic until it is too late.
Hobbies become obsessive, not addictive - the word addictive is being misused here. Hobbies are a mental obsession only. Addiction is the physical dependance coupled with the mental obsession.
The physical dependance is the what moves it from (say) a mental disorder to a disease.
I hope that helps clear things up.
godofpie
Chief Cook & Bottle Washer
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2008
- Messages
- 950
AA Alfie-
I am coming to the conclusion that (most) of the people in this thread that are arguing against AA don't have any real desire to learn about AA or how it really works (which is different for different people). I would like to direct any of the those that are sincerely interested in more info about AA and how it works read this thread I found on AA when I first joined the forum.
I am coming to the conclusion that (most) of the people in this thread that are arguing against AA don't have any real desire to learn about AA or how it really works (which is different for different people). I would like to direct any of the those that are sincerely interested in more info about AA and how it works read this thread I found on AA when I first joined the forum.
Mr.D
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,178
Still catching up with this thread, so my apologies if I cover ground that has already been addressed.
As to the OP, why the insistence that AA is a religeous program? That it has some roots in Christianity is undeniable, as is the fact that there are certainly particular groups that are overtly evangelistic about their brand of religion, but AA as a whole is religiously neutral in that it neither favors nor disfavors any particular religion.
To wit: my home group has explicitly decided to NOT use the Lord's Prayer as we wish to not offend or exclude anyone.
Moreover, one of the fundamental precepts of AA is that if you don't like how AA is being implemented in a particular group, you are free to start your own! Want a group that avoids the 'G' word? Go ahead and make one. There's a group locally that does just that.
Lastly (for this post), there is nothing about 'God' that need be supernatural (that's the basic point behind the 'doorknob' saying, it's not meant to be taken too literally). The part about reliance on a higher power is symbolically an acceptance of outside help. My higher power is in fact 'not me.'
More on some specific points later
As to the OP, why the insistence that AA is a religeous program? That it has some roots in Christianity is undeniable, as is the fact that there are certainly particular groups that are overtly evangelistic about their brand of religion, but AA as a whole is religiously neutral in that it neither favors nor disfavors any particular religion.
To wit: my home group has explicitly decided to NOT use the Lord's Prayer as we wish to not offend or exclude anyone.
Moreover, one of the fundamental precepts of AA is that if you don't like how AA is being implemented in a particular group, you are free to start your own! Want a group that avoids the 'G' word? Go ahead and make one. There's a group locally that does just that.
Lastly (for this post), there is nothing about 'God' that need be supernatural (that's the basic point behind the 'doorknob' saying, it's not meant to be taken too literally). The part about reliance on a higher power is symbolically an acceptance of outside help. My higher power is in fact 'not me.'
More on some specific points later
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
I noticed that when contradictions within his own statements were pointed out he quit replying to me.
Still waiting for where this occured in this thread. Seems you might have been lying?
You have yet to explain this. Or was this some alarmism you made up for good measure?
Gandalfs Beard
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,548
I read the first couple of pages on this thread and the last couple, so forgive me if anyone has already covered the following:
These are directly quoted from the OFFICIAL website of the GSO of Alcoholics Anonymous. AA is a RELIGION. End of Story.
Having been to my ex-stepfather's AA meetings, and read much of the literature, participated briefly in NA, and done a brief study of AA's history, I can attest to the accuracy Wikipedia's AA entry. I also noticed the tendency of many participants in AA to simply switch addictions. Many of my ex-stepfather's meetings were conducted in smoke-filled, caffienated, donut munching sessions.
It is likely, though debatable, that one or two of the twelve steps might actually be psychologically beneficial, but it is astounding that the APA still gives AA any credibility at all. Likewise, it is obvious that support groups can be beneficial, but the structural model of AA and it's derivatives offer nothing more than a support system--only with the added baggage of its religious tenets (and make no mistake, the 12 steps are clearly religious tenets. And for all that AA's rhetoric is that there are 'no rules', this is belied if you actually challenge any of the Steps). There is no sound Empirical Basis for most of the 12 steps in any psychological, psychiatric, or neurological system.
Nearly all other 12 step programs are based almost entirely on AA's model. And the Judicial system DOES force people into these programs all the time, which amounts to State sanctioning of Religion.
There are many reasons for Alcoholism, ranging from socio-psychological traumas, political-economic traumas, mere hedonistic inculcation, habituation, and neurological predilections, or a combination thereof.
The AA model of Alcoholism prevention is not "Disease", as it purports to be, but "Sin". It is plausible that some forms of Alcoholism do fit into the "Disease" model, but even to apply that model across the board is a clear mistake--a trap that many in the Medical Community fall into.
Still, insofar as some forms of Alcoholism may respond to Medical Therapy, a scientific approach of treating the underlying neurological causes instead of the symptoms (self-medicating with alcohol or other drugs) is a far better approach to treatment.
Psychological and Psychiatric professionals can also help some "addicts" work through the underlying causes of their problems, such as dealing with depression, schizophrenia, and other issues directly. And other Medical professionals can help people who are often dealing with Chronic Pain issues by self-medicating.
In some cases, the religiously inclined CAN respond better to help from religious programs, but only if their "addictions" aren't masking deeper problems.
In many cases, "addiction" runs rampant in the politically and economically dispossessed and oppressed communities. In which case the best "cure" is political/economic enfranchisement and the curbing of Economic Exploitation.
In conclusion: I am no expert, but I think it should be clear that the Religious and Disease models of addiction often obfuscate the fact that addictive patterns of behaviour are more often than not, SYMPTOMS of deeper problems, for which many people self-medicate.
Personally, I think 12 Step programs are the worst approach, not simply because of the religious issue, but also because they rarely help people discover the underlying problem they are self-medicating for, instead MASKING the problem with Religious Rhetoric.
Some of the most successful programs have been experimental programs in Europe with psychotropics such as Ibogaine, which gives people a chance to "break" their obsessive patterns of behaviour, which in turn gives people a chance to discover the underlying causes of their problems.
My recommendations for reading materials includes:
The Diseasing of America by Stanton Peele-- an excellent resource even if he does overstate his case a bit (clearly, the disease model may be appropriate in some cases where the cause might have a neurological basis). But first and foremost Peele dispels the conflation of the religious model with the disease model, and examines many of the problems with the disease model itself.
I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional by Wendy Kaminer-- which examines the self-help movement over-all from the Pseudoscience of 12 steps to New Age "therapies".
GB
EDIT: After going back and reading through the rest of the posts, I must offer Special Kudos to Tinyal for largely sticking to the Empirical Evidence that proves beyond a Reasonable Doubt that AA and its offshoots are inherently religious, not particularly successful (as far as actually helping addicts), and occasionally dangerous. The Sophistry, Conflation, and Obfuscation of deniers like AAAlfie is almost painful to behold.
The reason people like AAAlfie claim AA is not religious, is because they want to peddle their pseudo-scientific religion as science (all the better to reap "Converts"), just as Intelligent Design is Creationism dressed up as Pseudo-science. Marplotsmakes some cogent points in his post on the last page, though I think his point regarding the "backpedalling on God" is a bit of an overstatement. Sobriety IS a key issue, but it doesn't overshadow the imposition of God in AA.
The whole set up is based on Sin, Confession, and Absolution. One can fall off the wagon all the time ("One day at a time"), but as long as you show up, Confess your Sins, and Pray with your Brethren for Absolution, you're good to go--until the next time you fall off the wagon. I have sat in on meetings which had people who had been in and out for years. Their Lurid Confessions (the juicier the better) and renewed Vows would bring the loudest applause.
To continue the repetition that the Steps and Rules are merely Suggestions is beyond specious, and beyond disingenuous; it is a LIE. As other posters have pointed out, the Steps ARE the program (God and all), and this is drummed into every AA Adherent. In the same way, the proposition that one can claim God is a Doorknob, is simply an Obfuscation that a Belief in God is a foundational requirement for the 12 Steps.
These are directly quoted from the OFFICIAL website of the GSO of Alcoholics Anonymous. AA is a RELIGION. End of Story.
Having been to my ex-stepfather's AA meetings, and read much of the literature, participated briefly in NA, and done a brief study of AA's history, I can attest to the accuracy Wikipedia's AA entry. I also noticed the tendency of many participants in AA to simply switch addictions. Many of my ex-stepfather's meetings were conducted in smoke-filled, caffienated, donut munching sessions.
It is likely, though debatable, that one or two of the twelve steps might actually be psychologically beneficial, but it is astounding that the APA still gives AA any credibility at all. Likewise, it is obvious that support groups can be beneficial, but the structural model of AA and it's derivatives offer nothing more than a support system--only with the added baggage of its religious tenets (and make no mistake, the 12 steps are clearly religious tenets. And for all that AA's rhetoric is that there are 'no rules', this is belied if you actually challenge any of the Steps). There is no sound Empirical Basis for most of the 12 steps in any psychological, psychiatric, or neurological system.
Nearly all other 12 step programs are based almost entirely on AA's model. And the Judicial system DOES force people into these programs all the time, which amounts to State sanctioning of Religion.
There are many reasons for Alcoholism, ranging from socio-psychological traumas, political-economic traumas, mere hedonistic inculcation, habituation, and neurological predilections, or a combination thereof.
The AA model of Alcoholism prevention is not "Disease", as it purports to be, but "Sin". It is plausible that some forms of Alcoholism do fit into the "Disease" model, but even to apply that model across the board is a clear mistake--a trap that many in the Medical Community fall into.
Still, insofar as some forms of Alcoholism may respond to Medical Therapy, a scientific approach of treating the underlying neurological causes instead of the symptoms (self-medicating with alcohol or other drugs) is a far better approach to treatment.
Psychological and Psychiatric professionals can also help some "addicts" work through the underlying causes of their problems, such as dealing with depression, schizophrenia, and other issues directly. And other Medical professionals can help people who are often dealing with Chronic Pain issues by self-medicating.
In some cases, the religiously inclined CAN respond better to help from religious programs, but only if their "addictions" aren't masking deeper problems.
In many cases, "addiction" runs rampant in the politically and economically dispossessed and oppressed communities. In which case the best "cure" is political/economic enfranchisement and the curbing of Economic Exploitation.
In conclusion: I am no expert, but I think it should be clear that the Religious and Disease models of addiction often obfuscate the fact that addictive patterns of behaviour are more often than not, SYMPTOMS of deeper problems, for which many people self-medicate.
Personally, I think 12 Step programs are the worst approach, not simply because of the religious issue, but also because they rarely help people discover the underlying problem they are self-medicating for, instead MASKING the problem with Religious Rhetoric.
Some of the most successful programs have been experimental programs in Europe with psychotropics such as Ibogaine, which gives people a chance to "break" their obsessive patterns of behaviour, which in turn gives people a chance to discover the underlying causes of their problems.
My recommendations for reading materials includes:
The Diseasing of America by Stanton Peele-- an excellent resource even if he does overstate his case a bit (clearly, the disease model may be appropriate in some cases where the cause might have a neurological basis). But first and foremost Peele dispels the conflation of the religious model with the disease model, and examines many of the problems with the disease model itself.
I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional by Wendy Kaminer-- which examines the self-help movement over-all from the Pseudoscience of 12 steps to New Age "therapies".
GB
EDIT: After going back and reading through the rest of the posts, I must offer Special Kudos to Tinyal for largely sticking to the Empirical Evidence that proves beyond a Reasonable Doubt that AA and its offshoots are inherently religious, not particularly successful (as far as actually helping addicts), and occasionally dangerous. The Sophistry, Conflation, and Obfuscation of deniers like AAAlfie is almost painful to behold.
The reason people like AAAlfie claim AA is not religious, is because they want to peddle their pseudo-scientific religion as science (all the better to reap "Converts"), just as Intelligent Design is Creationism dressed up as Pseudo-science. Marplotsmakes some cogent points in his post on the last page, though I think his point regarding the "backpedalling on God" is a bit of an overstatement. Sobriety IS a key issue, but it doesn't overshadow the imposition of God in AA.
The whole set up is based on Sin, Confession, and Absolution. One can fall off the wagon all the time ("One day at a time"), but as long as you show up, Confess your Sins, and Pray with your Brethren for Absolution, you're good to go--until the next time you fall off the wagon. I have sat in on meetings which had people who had been in and out for years. Their Lurid Confessions (the juicier the better) and renewed Vows would bring the loudest applause.
To continue the repetition that the Steps and Rules are merely Suggestions is beyond specious, and beyond disingenuous; it is a LIE. As other posters have pointed out, the Steps ARE the program (God and all), and this is drummed into every AA Adherent. In the same way, the proposition that one can claim God is a Doorknob, is simply an Obfuscation that a Belief in God is a foundational requirement for the 12 Steps.
Last edited:
Mr.D
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,178
Bits from the Boy Scouts of America Oath and Law
Are the Boy Scouts a religion?
The US Congressional Oath:
Is Congress a religion?
I don't deny that AA has many of the characteristics of a religion, and it certainly borrows language and concepts from religion (Christianity in particular), but it fails to qualify as a religion in and of itself.
I posit that one of the defining characteristics of a religion is that one cannot belong to more than one at a time. (I'll note that by this definition, certain modern movements like universalism aren't clearly religions either)
Belz...
Fiend God
But alcoholism IS drinking. Look at me for instance: I have trouble staying away from food. Candy and chocolate, specifically. It's an addiction, to a degree, but I'll be damned if someone calls it a disease.
Pray tell, then, at what point does something become "mental" and not "physical", or vice-versa ? The brain is a physical structure, so I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to tell me that physical dependency to a hobby cannot exist, especially since pleasure is chemical. Someone can become addicted to the pleasure associated with an activity, for instance. Isn't physical dependency to those endorphins your body produces correspond to an "addiction" ?
Belz...
Fiend God
How am I "yet to explains this", exactly ?
Religious cults are dangerous and harmful. Cloaking such religiosity in a veil of salvation for desperate people, if done intentionally, is downright evil.
- Status