Why do people insist AA is not religious?/Efficacy of AA & other treatment programs

[Belz...]

You'd better ring and let them know, quick!
They've been waiting on your advice.

Solid argument, or thinly veiled insult ?

 

[tsig]

Still waiting for where this occured in this thread. Seems you might have been lying?

Here's the post you did not respond to:


Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie View Post
Epic fail - I asked for you to prove it without qualification - there was heaps in there, death being just one choice out of many I offered. But thanks for trying.

Alcohol kills alcoholics, remember? Not two weeks go by and I see someone reject the possibility of recovery (whether they try AA, rehab, detox or something else) and die. So why not try AA?

I wonder what would have happened if Complexity's partner tried AA? I wonder if he would have been one of the 9%?
Imagine that, 9% saved from death or worse because they went to AA, with or without religion.

tsig:
Just can't help contradicting yourself.





http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6160290&postcount=237
Before you call me a liar again you better have proof.

 

[Tinyal]

GB - thanks for the compliment, and you're doing an excellent job - I had to take a short break from this thread as the cult 'without question' supporters were just not looking at the facts (as cult members do everywhere) - and continue to ignore actual data substituting faith and anecdote (gee, sounds just like some religions I can think of - I wonder why that is?).

Belz & Ts, both doing very well carrying the skeptic debate forward using logic and facts. Thanks!

As I've mentioned multiple times, I have 21 years in AA and continue to attend regularly (my reasons are elsewhere in this thread) - people really need solid info on what AA is (and isn't), and so I speak out both inside and outside AA (the feedback from inside AA is just brutal - no other word to describe it - for the most part, as you might imagine happens when anyone starts questioning someone's religion).

I'm taking a short 2-3 day break from this thread (forced, due to workload), but will check in and post more in a day or 3.

Another way to put it - AA has a 95% failure rate, Doing nothing means 5% of a given population will get sober on their own every year. Not the sort of program we should be forcing people into, nor claiming amazing success rates ('Rarely have we seen a person fail...etc), nor supporting a multi-billion dollar enterprise of networked 12 step treatment centers funneling in new recruits...

Interesting bit of news from the very top of AA - it has to do with AA just now noticing their membership has stayed at roughly 2 million for more than 15 years now and isn't growing (may even be declining), and they are starting to talk about 'how to attract agnostic's and atheists'. More on that later.

A link (one of several I've posted) to some solid data on the 95% failure rates and other solid data on AA's effectiveness, since apparently the AA supporters on this thread haven't read the other links I've posted I doubt they'll read this one:

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Um, no.

It is the behavior that defines addiction, physical withdrawal symptoms are not needed. Now I know that you have probably been trained or something, but you are wrong in that.

There is addiction, there is addiction, there is no 'disease addiction', there is no 'psychological addiction' there is addiction.

Symptoms of physical withdrawal are NOT needed, this is the crazy thinking that led many people to believe 'cocaine is not addictive'.

And your nomenclature is way messed up, some 'mental disorders' are diseases, some are not . But addiction is a mental health issue, it is not a 'disease' in the most common usage of the word.

Now since you are from Aussieland you are more likely to use the ICD-10

Here is the qualifier for *.2 dependence

.2 Dependence syndrome
A cluster of behavioural, cognitive, and physiological phenomena that develop after repeated substance use and that typically include a strong desire to take the drug, difficulties in controlling its use, persisting in its use despite harmful consequences, a higher priority given to drug use than to other activities and obligations, increased tolerance, and sometimes a physical withdrawal state.

The dependence syndrome may be present for a specific psychoactive substance (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, or diazepam), for a class of substances (e.g. opioid drugs), or for a wider range of pharmacologically different psychoactive substances.

Note the ‘sometimes a physical withdrawal state’.

Now the DSM is similar BUT ‘symptoms of withdrawal’ are not a requirement for addiction.

And IN FACT you can be an ‘alcoholic’ and NOT have any symptoms of withdrawal.

And ALL psychoactive substances do WHAT? They cross the blood brain barriers and all people who have addictions that are not to substances have physical brains, they are ALL 'mental disorders'.

Addiction is a behavioral disorder is may or may not have biological vulnerabilities, it may or may not have withdrawal syndromes, BUT they are behavioral.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

.. big snip..
removal of BS

GB

Lots of ad homs in there as usual.
It is obvious you don't care for discussion and education of any sort.

You refuse to respond to any questions at all and couple it with a lot of 'I know better than the experts" claims.
Perhaps you and your infinite wisdom should be my higher power.

If you can respond to my challenge of "liar" (which you are and know it) with some data and/or evidence, I will be happy to re-engage.

Until then, you are wasting our collective time.

You are No #2 on my ignore list.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

As I've mentioned multiple times, I have 21 years in AA and continue to attend regularly (my reasons are elsewhere in this thread) - people really need solid info on what AA is (and isn't), and so I speak out both inside and outside AA (the feedback from inside AA is just brutal - no other word to describe it - for the most part, as you might imagine happens when anyone starts questioning someone's religion).

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

Did/does AA work for you?
Did you embrace a higher power?

Why won't you respond to these questions.

Do you not disagree with the OP that AA does not have to be religious for it to work?

 

[Tinyal]

Did/does AA work for you?

Embracing AA's core doctrine - that being Bill's claim that except in very rare, unheard of cases, it is impossible to get and maintain sobriety unless one develops a concious contact with a 'higher power' - no, that did not work for me. SOS's 'play the movie to the end' and my own will , coupled with the fact I was sick and tired of being sick and tired, as well as socializing/relearning how to be part of a social group - these are what worked for me - and have continued to work for the last 21 sober years.

Did you embrace a higher power?

No, I do not. Nor have I ever done so. The reason? (as I am sure you are going to ask next) - there is no evidence a 'higher power' as defined by Bill's writings exists. There is also no evidence a soul apart from a physical brain exists. Additionally, there is no evidence a 'spirit' world exists. No evidence ever, not when Bill was writing the big book, not in the last 2000 years - not ever.
No evidence = No Belief a 'higher power' exists.
Do you believe in things that don't have any evidence they exist? I don't.

Of course there are things that are more powerful than I, ranging from the muscular bodybuilders to a raging spacecraft - but all these types of 'higher powers' have evidence (repeatable, transferable, etc) for their existence, and these types of things are clearly not what bill was thinking of when he grudgingly wrote 'power greater than yourselves' - he was referring to the judeochristian god specifically.

Note: I suggest everyone interested in what AA doctrine really says about 'higher powers' read Chapter 4, as in it Bill quite clearly states that using the group as a higher power is only meant as a small start - a first step - to developing a relationship with god, and is not meant as a final choice.

Why won't you respond to these questions.

Unlike yourself, I do respond honestly to questions - and have all throughout this thread.

Do you not disagree with the OP that AA does not have to be religious for it to work?

No, I do not - the data I've posted and referred to makes clear that AA is religious (specifically designed for cult conversion to a bastardized version of xianity) - if something works, and it isn't religious (such as a SOS or SMART self help group) - or using the group as a higher power permanently - then it's fine and dandy, but it's not AA.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

AAAlfie:
You are No #2 on my ignore list.

Excellent. Let me know when I'm number 1.

Lots of ad homs in there as usual.

Let me know when you get a dictionary and learn the definition of ad hominem. So far, the most I can be accused of is sarcasm.

It is obvious you don't care for discussion and education of any sort.

You refuse to respond to any questions at all and couple it with a lot of 'I know better than the experts" claims.
Perhaps you and your infinite wisdom should be my higher power.

If you can respond to my challenge of "liar" (which you are and know it) with some data and/or evidence, I will be happy to re-engage.

Until then, you are wasting our collective time.

WOW! Project much?

So far I have responded to most of your points.

You, on the other hand have responded to NONE of mine AT ALL. Instead, you use your rhetorical scissors to dismiss my arguments out of hand, and with vindictiveness. I haven't engaged in ad hominem yet, but seeing as you've got nothing else but, I now feel free to do so.

I can't believe you're a "counselor". I shudder to think of the damage you're causing.

You pontificate and bluster with manufactured outrage, because you have no argument. And because I prefer "experts" to have at least a minimal background in Empiricism, and to be free of the corrupting effects of Theocratic and Commercial Politics, you make unfounded accusations that I think I'm better than experts.

I make no such claims. But I do think my analysis is on the mark, and it has apparently struck a nerve. Besides which, many of the so-called experts have little to show for their "expertise" except increasing numbers of people with "addictions".

But in the end, my preference is not to simply parrot supposed "experts" in a debate, but present an analysis that utilizes Empirical Evidence (as in AA's own source material) and analyses it in its geo-historical and political contexts. If you don't know the historical, religious and political contexts of your own organization, it's no wonder you have no argument.

The only person wasting time here is YOU, expecting your outrage to cover your lack of argument, data, or analysis.

At least Mr D, proffered an argument of sorts, devious and sophist though it was. Where's yours? I suspect you shot your wad a few pages ago and have nothing left but invective.

GB

 

[tsig]

Lots of ad homs in there as usual.
It is obvious you don't care for discussion and education of any sort.

You refuse to respond to any questions at all and couple it with a lot of 'I know better than the experts" claims.
Perhaps you and your infinite wisdom should be my higher power.

If you can respond to my challenge of "liar" (which you are and know it) with some data and/or evidence, I will be happy to re-engage.

Until then, you are wasting our collective time.

You are No #2 on my ignore list.

Well ignoring the argument is one way of dealing with it.

ETA:Why didn't you answer my post 302?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Embracing AA's core doctrine - that being Bill's claim that except in very rare, unheard of cases, it is impossible to get and maintain sobriety unless one develops a concious contact with a 'higher power' - no, that did not work for me. SOS's 'play the movie to the end' and my own will , coupled with the fact I was sick and tired of being sick and tired, as well as socializing/relearning how to be part of a social group - these are what worked for me - and have continued to work for the last 21 sober years.



No, I do not. Nor have I ever done so. The reason? (as I am sure you are going to ask next) - there is no evidence a 'higher power' as defined by Bill's writings exists. There is also no evidence a soul apart from a physical brain exists. Additionally, there is no evidence a 'spirit' world exists. No evidence ever, not when Bill was writing the big book, not in the last 2000 years - not ever.
No evidence = No Belief a 'higher power' exists.
Do you believe in things that don't have any evidence they exist? I don't.

Of course there are things that are more powerful than I, ranging from the muscular bodybuilders to a raging spacecraft - but all these types of 'higher powers' have evidence (repeatable, transferable, etc) for their existence, and these types of things are clearly not what bill was thinking of when he grudgingly wrote 'power greater than yourselves' - he was referring to the judeochristian god specifically.

Note: I suggest everyone interested in what AA doctrine really says about 'higher powers' read Chapter 4, as in it Bill quite clearly states that using the group as a higher power is only meant as a small start - a first step - to developing a relationship with god, and is not meant as a final choice.



Unlike yourself, I do respond honestly to questions - and have all throughout this thread.


No, I do not - the data I've posted and referred to makes clear that AA is religious (specifically designed for cult conversion to a bastardized version of xianity) - if something works, and it isn't religious (such as a SOS or SMART self help group) - or using the group as a higher power permanently - then it's fine and dandy, but it's not AA.

Thanks for that.

I find it interesting that you have done AA but not done AA at the same time.
As I have said earlier, you are living proof of the "whatever works, use" philosophy that is at the root of the fellowship (i.e. the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking).

By the way, I agree that Bill refers to the God you are talking about - but he was never uintended to be the first and last word on this. He was urging others to do what he did, as are all older members when they say "this worked for me, give it a go", or whatever. Like Bill, they do not have the last word on how you treat your recovery, only you do.

Bill has never said he was a higher power, or god spoke through him or similar. Why we keep rolling out his personal quotations is a little beyond me frankly. Sure, he wrote the book in terms of what he knew. Things have changed, AA has evolved, his story hasn't.

Here, ones 'spirituality' is a completely individual thing and can be construed in any way one likes. If it is not like that there - well... clearly I can't comment except to say that the traditions and steps make certain things clear to me; it is a pity if they have been bastardised in certain parts of the states and elsewhere.

Alcoholics come together in an effort to get sober (remember primary purpose?), relifgion is certainly not the primary purpose, spirituality is a tool to be used if one wishes (again, you are a fantastic example of how this can work in a practical sense).

Cheers.

 

[tsig]

Thanks for that.

I find it interesting that you have done AA but not done AA at the same time.
As I have said earlier, you are living proof of the "whatever works, use" philosophy that is at the root of the fellowship (i.e. the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking).

By the way, I agree that Bill refers to the God you are talking about - but he was never uintended to be the first and last word on this. He was urging others to do what he did, as are all older members when they say "this worked for me, give it a go", or whatever. Like Bill, they do not have the last word on how you treat your recovery, only you do.

Bill has never said he was a higher power, or god spoke through him or similar. Why we keep rolling out his personal quotations is a little beyond me frankly. Sure, he wrote the book in terms of what he knew. Things have changed, AA has evolved, his story hasn't.

Here, ones 'spirituality' is a completely individual thing and can be construed in any way one likes. If it is not like that there - well... clearly I can't comment except to say that the traditions and steps make certain things clear to me; it is a pity if they have been bastardised in certain parts of the states and elsewhere.

Alcoholics come together in an effort to get sober (remember primary purpose?), relifgion is certainly not the primary purpose, spirituality is a tool to be used if one wishes (again, you are a fantastic example of how this can work in a practical sense).

Cheers.

Interesting. after calling me out twice and calling me a liar once you now ignore post #302.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

ETA:Why didn't you answer my post 302?

Apologies, I missed it in the rest.

Um I actually did respond via post 244 during the exchange with both you and Ponderingturtle. Perhaps you simply missed it.

I would suggest you revisit what I said and provide me with the evidence I asked for then we can continue that part of the discussion.

But whilst we are on that part of the topic, I will reiterate/clarify:
- AA does not have the market cornered on recovery.
- Other things do work (please get me the data you guys say is there)
- Sometimes (not always) it is AA or death. Did you know that something like 5% of premature deaths in the western world are related to alcohol/ alcoholism?
- If one is an alcoholic, and continues to practice their addiction, their life will get worse in four areas - these are called the four Ls: Livelihood, Lovelife, Liver (health) and Legal. Death falls under the health category.

You guys talk like alcoholism is not problem and that AA does not help anyone. That claim is patently wrong as evidenced by the two million people (I think is the number quoted earlier) that attend AA.

It has also been suggested that 5% of people just stop. Great, that's 5%. Add AAs 9% to that and we have 14% of alcoholics achieving some semblance of sobriety.

That leaves 86% getting what? Better - hardly. What happens to them? How many die? How many end up institutionalised? Get some data on that is you want to throw these figures around.

AA provides part of the solution, they are not the whole of the solution. Never were, never claimed to be, never want(ed) to be.

 

[tsig]

Apologies, I missed it in the rest.

Um I actually did respond via post 244 during the exchange with both you and Ponderingturtle. Perhaps you simply missed it.

I would suggest you revisit what I said and provide me with the evidence I asked for then we can continue that part of the discussion.

But whilst we are on that part of the topic, I will reiterate/clarify:
- AA does not have the market cornered on recovery.
- Other things do work (please get me the data you guys say is there)
- Sometimes (not always) it is AA or death. Did you know that something like 5% of premature deaths in the western world are related to alcohol/ alcoholism?
- If one is an alcoholic, and continues to practice their addiction, their life will get worse in four areas - these are called the four Ls: Livelihood, Lovelife, Liver (health) and Legal. Death falls under the health category.

You guys talk like alcoholism is not problem and that AA does not help anyone. That claim is patently wrong as evidenced by the two million people (I think is the number quoted earlier) that attend AA.

It has also been suggested that 5% of people just stop. Great, that's 5%. Add AAs 9% to that and we have 14% of alcoholics achieving some semblance of sobriety.

That leaves 86% getting what? Better - hardly. What happens to them? How many die? How many end up institutionalised? Get some data on that is you want to throw these figures around.

AA provides part of the solution, they are not the whole of the solution. Never were, never claimed to be, never want(ed) to be.

Post 244:

26th July 2010, 07:43 AM #244
A.A.Alfie



Perhaps I could have been clearer. That said, your lack of understanding is not really my problem.

But do you have these other stats? I am genuinely interested in what methods of recovery achieve success.

I see nothing here that answers anything i have posted.

Your stories are getting tangled. first you call me out twice about a post that you say I never made then you say you answered it in a post that has nothing to do with it.


How can you claim to have answered a post yet call me a liar for never having posted it?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Can you get me some of the data or not?
You said I stopped responding, I hadn't - certainly we mixed up and I retract me calling you a liar and I apologise for same and my part in that.

That said, I did respond or felt I had.

So.. do you have some other information, I am genuinely interested in the data on other programs that achieve some success.

 

[godofpie]

True, but the CDC and the Medical Community's lumping together of all forms of alcoholism into a disease model is dubious, and politically (rather than medically) based on the Sin/Disease model that has become the de facto model for addiction. It has become more a PC article of Faith, thanks to AA's cultural propaganda. This is probably one of the key reasons why I dislike AA so much.



GB

Do you have some evidences of this "cultural propaganda"? We don't advertise and we are suppose to "maintain our anonymity at the level of press radio and film"? If an AA'er is producing "propaganda" that is something we can discuss. That would go against the tenets of AA.

 

[godofpie]

Or how it is so much more effective than anything else but with no documentation to back it up. You got to take it on faith that it works better than the alternatives.

I'm not saying it is anymore effective than any other treatment. For a very long time AA was the only hope for hopeless alcoholics. Hopefully with the leaps and bounds being made in neuroscience, maybe we are not to far away from a cure or an "antidote" to addiction and alcoholism. Then this debate would be rendered moot. But until that day comes, AA is the only treatment that is available for free, and for those that can't afford hospitalization, AA is still their best hope.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I'm not saying it is anymore effective than any other treatment.

It's interesting that others continue to try and put words in our mouths on this point (and GBs previously about cultural propaganda, running the debate and the like).
Then they balk, hedge and move goal posts when asked to provide examples.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Must Tinyal and I really repost AA literature? Your propaganda speaks for itself. It's been around for 80 years and is spread ubiquitously in nearly every civic and community center in the US. AA actively seeks to promote itself, and I have also posted its website menu that is expressly for outreach to the Judicial, Health, and Business communities. Should I repost that?

AA Spokespeople and documentaries are on Radio and TV, and in schoolrooms, and Sunday Schools on a regular basis. Not to mention the numerous "special episodes" of fictional TV programmes that have featured story-lines promoting AA and its offshoots since the 1980s. Not to mention the politicians, presidents, surgeon generals and the like lauding AA and the 12 Steps. Not to mention again the fact that AA and NA meetings are the first line of defense in any court ordered proceedings for those who run afoul of the law while allegedly under the influence.

The 12 Steps are almost as well known as the 10 Commandments here in the States. This all strikes me as active proselytizing by any standard. And AA's principles that once an addict you are diseased for life and that moderation is never again possible for the "addict" are now thoroughly ingrained into the political propaganda of nearly all Anti-Legalization groups, whose literature invariably cites AA's literature as the definitive word on the subject.

Politicians, Legal Professionals, Medical Practitioners, Journalists, and others, who question the validity of the programmed assumptions based on AA Lit, do so at the potential risk to their careers.

Deny and hurl invective all you like, it will not change the evidence that the US is awash in your propaganda.

As I do not live in Australia, I do not know the extent of AA's propagandist reach there and cannot speak to it. I know just enough about its reach in Europe to know that it is nowhere near as ubiquitous as in the US, though there are some possible indications that AA's propaganda has made some headway in the UK. Maybe someone on the forum currently living there could speak to that.

As to effectiveness, considering that it is politically nearly impossible to get funding to explore other avenues in the US (because of the PC ubiquitousness of AA's Sin/Disease Model of "addiction"), it is no wonder that little progress has been made in other areas.

However, preliminary studies in Europe of Ibogaine treatment for "addiction" have demonstrated up to 75% success rates in initially breaking the "addiction" pattern. No doubt therapy, treatment for root problems, and making other life changes are likely necessary to make it stick.

And as I have stated from the beginning: to the extent that AA provides a support system, it can have beneficial effects for those few who respond well to a religiously based support system.

Just because I profoundly dislike the fact that AA's religious propaganda has given it an undeserved top quasi-legal-medical status, doesn't mean that I can't applaud those (few) who have made it work for them.

My biggest complaints are that it is given much more status and power over peoples lives than it deserves, and that its principles are the goalposts in any discussion of other means of combating "addiction", and that it, generally speaking, takes a one-size fits all approach.

GB

 

[Dancing David]

AA Alfie, before reading any posts, sorry about all the CAPS yesterday!

 

[Hallo Alfie]

??