Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

24567…13

Comments

  • #52
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    As I said in another post, it seems to me to replace one addiction with another. Be it drink with god or some other 'power', you're not really ever the one in control with the AA approach.


  • #53
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    lazygal wrote: »
    As I said in another post, it seems to me to replace one addiction with another. Be it drink with god or some other 'power', you're not really ever the one in control with the AA approach.

    Possibly! 'God' is a slightly less malevolent force than the demon drink though!
    I think it's just a way that we can somehow, what's the word, 'contain' our emotions and thoughts. It's a bit of a case of - it's not all on you mate - whatever will be will be - don't be stressing about it.

    You see, it's the stressing that drives us back to drink! It is critical to have some way to handle stress or manage stress.

    A lot of therapies use different 'diversionary' tactics really. It's much of a muchness to me. It's all about calming the F down!


  • #54
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    sopretty wrote: »
    Fair enough - I don't even know what hyperbole means lol.
    {...}

    It's exagerrating to make something appear more attractive than it is essentially. Using exciting words to entice. You see it in advertising all the time; "Shop's biggest ever sale, with thousands of massive reductions across our huge selection of products." Read the quoted text back without the bolded words and you'll get a good idea of why it's used.


  • #55
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    I'd be the last person to exaggerate! (see what I did there? I exaggerated lol).

    I never intended to exaggerate. In all my posts I have only been speaking on behalf of myself - never on the part of AA. Their literature is there if anyone wishes to access it.

    I just dislike seeing a thread dissecting AA. If anything was to put someone off seeking treatment, this one would! As I said, they are not the only source of help. Try everything and anything. Don't dismiss anything until you've tried it.

    AA has saved lives. There is no denying that. I would hate to see someone who might benefit from AA being totally turned against it before they even checked it out.


  • #56
    celticcrash
    Registered Users Posts: 850 ✭✭✭celticcrash


    seamus wrote: »
    Like many organisations with a religious slant, from what I gather the religious element of AA varies from meeting to meeting. Some meetings are run by a local priest and will include praying and strongly pushing the idea that you cannot free yourself of your demon without submitting to God.

    Other meetings gloss over the whole spiritual part and give it little heed, instead focussing on actually doing something.

    I would say on the whole though if you're irreligious, you will probably find it difficult in either case. If you don't feel like you fit in with the group dynamic or that you have to hide some aspect of your personality, then AA is not really going to work for you.

    What's strange is that it's basically taboo to even question the existence of AA. A number of studies have been done, and none has ever demonstrated that AA is at all effective.
    I recall an article from a couple of years ago where some study was claiming that AA was in fact less effective than going cold turkey on your own. People were almost foaming at the mouth that someone would dare question the worthiness of the AA.
    I'll see if I can find any reference to that study.

    Never has an AA meeting being run by a priest.

    A.A. is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.

    Its a god of your own understanding, not one beat into you by a church.
    Theres Buddhists in AA. They have no god, but still its a higher power.
    Theres atheists in AA they use there group as their higher power.

    Theres 67 meetings in Limerick and county Limerick every week and most of these would be nearly packed with members who are getting help staying sober. And a lot of these people would be long term.
    There is no other organization who can come close to help so many alcoholics stay of the drink long term.

    It would be impossible to do a proper study on AA, as most of its members
    want to stay anonymous. AA does not keep any kind of record of who or how many people come to meetings.
    Members want to stay anonymous, simple because people judge them negatively. I have myself heard people say and in a judgemental way (oh that fellow is an alcoholic) even if that person had stopped drinking 17 years ago. They just want to get on with life with out being branded one of those.


  • #57
    Ivaniayo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10 ✭Ivaniayo


    I know several people that were helped greatly by the AA when they were at their wits end, and their families were supported by Al Anon. I wouldn't be for trying to slur their reputation as a whole.


  • #58
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Please read the 12 steps yourself. ...
    I have, but thanks for suggestion. A refresh is always good as is reading the accompanying explanatory texts. In other words, RTFM in detail then feel free to comment.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    ... They do not just mention "god" but also attributes of this god and its capabilities. It has the attribute of the male sex. It has the attribute of being able to intervent and change things. It has attributes of intelligence, intent, and ability to hear your appeals.....
    As above. Feel free to discount and ignore the meaning of god / higher power given in their own literature and substitute your own, and somehow rationalise (to yourself and for your benefit) your interpretation as AA’s.

    Sorry you can't see beyond the non-PC language of an eighty-year old book, but hey, when in doubt, lash out.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    ... It is about as religious as religious can get....
    Like what for example - a Muslim call to prayer, a Christian baptism, a Jewish funeral, a Black Mass, ... what?

    They state their programme is not a religious one and is open to believers, doubters and non-believers alike. Chapter 4, “We Agnostics” in The Big Book explains this clearly IMHO. Maybe read it sometime, with an open mind and no preconceived notions.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    ... So what? The point was that the lack of that data being included will dilute the usefulness of the results of such studies. Explaining reasons or excuses as to WHY that data is absent in no way addresses the implications and effects of that absence.

    If the data is flawed, the data is flawed. Excuse making as to WHY it is flawed is irrelevant and does not for one moment change the fact that the data is flawed...
    Let’s say someone wanted to know how many citeogs had played in Junior B hurling finals in all counties since the inception of the GAA and s/he discovered that the data had never been captured, would it be fair to expect that your reaction would be the same? Would you describe the GAA’s data-set as flawed or would you say that the statistician was an eejit for expecting an organisation to gather information having no relevance to their day-to-day operation?

    AA does not gather names and addresses nor does it track the lives of its members. To expect an organisation like AA to have the data-sets to participate in a longitudinal study of its membership is as bone-headed a notion as the imaginary GAA study in the preceding paragraph.

    And bye-the-bye, who specifically decided that a study of the current status of ex AAs is useful or serves any real purpose, other than to keep statisticians and sociologists in work?
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    ... The fact that you haven't grasped this basic fact about the organisation speaks volumes about the value of your post..
    I’m not sure what this sentence means in this context. I understand AA is anonymous, that it puts principles before personalities, is open to all who wish to engage in its programme and is demonstrably neither a religious organisation nor a pseudo religion.

    Oh and I have first hand feedback from clients I referred that it worked for them.


  • #59
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    mathepac wrote: »
    I have, but thanks for suggestion.

    Then rinse and repeat until you see the point I am making.
    mathepac wrote: »
    In other words, RTFM in detail then feel free to comment.

    I do not need your permission to comment, clearly, nor do I see it. And in fact I have read the "manual" at length. Both the first and most recent editions.
    mathepac wrote: »
    As above. Feel free to discount and ignore the meaning of god / higher power given in their own literature

    What I am doing is the exact opposite of ignoring and discounting it. I am directly commenting on it. The fact is that not only do the 12 steps use this word "god" but it also mentioned and infers the attributes of that god.

    Sure anyone can go in and ignore that and pretend they are saying something they are not.... but it will not change the fact of what it is they are actually saying.

    This is not "lashing out" so much as merely commenting on the facts.
    mathepac wrote: »
    They state their programme is not a religious one

    Then they are simply lying. And why would they not. The US courts often mandate that people go to AA. If it were openly a religious programme this would be, and is (as many people are starting to notice and contest) unconstitutional there.

    Again read and re-read the 12 steps. They do not just use the word god. They very much use the language and attributes of a theist interventionist god.
    mathepac wrote: »
    or would you say that the statistician was an eejit for expecting an organisation to gather information having no relevance to their day-to-day operation?

    If it were data that had no relevance to their day to day operation then you might have a point. But to measure your success rates with any treatment.... the number of people who start the treatment and then drop out of it is not just relevant, but paramount.

    If you only analyse long term members who are committed and stay in then you are willfully massaging the figures to make them look good. This is statistics 101 stuff here.
    mathepac wrote: »
    AA does not gather names and addresses nor does it track the lives of its members.

    Data and statistic acquisition does not have to be so intrusive. The relevant figures can be made and recorded without intrusion or breach of privacy.

    However the fact that it does not track out patients is not a good thing. When trialing a drug for example we do not only look at the immediate effects but we do follow up consultations and checks too over longer periods.

    When treating any condition there are well laid out methodologies and guidelines there for how to evaluate the efficacy of a treatment and how to collate, read and interpret the statistics. This simply is not being done here and that is not a good thing. At all. Rather these people are purporting to treat people but are doing it blindly, without any idea as to the actual effects they have on a larger scale and that is irresponsible. At best.

    There is nothing "boneheaded" about this. Or any other pointless invective you want to throw out to insult rather than discuss. We have the methodologies of epidemiology and the like for a good reason. We do not just engage in it for sport or kicks or highs or to "keep statisticians in work".
    mathepac wrote: »
    is demonstrably neither a religious organisation nor a pseudo religion.

    Assertion is not demonstration.
    mathepac wrote: »
    Oh and I have first hand feedback from clients I referred that it worked for them.

    I have commented on the value of such testimony many times in the thread. Do keep up.


  • #60
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    mathepac wrote: »
    I have, but thanks for suggestion. A refresh is always good as is reading the accompanying explanatory texts. In other words, RTFM in detail then feel free to comment.
    As above. Feel free to discount and ignore the meaning of god / higher power given in their own literature and substitute your own, and somehow rationalise (to yourself and for your benefit) your interpretation as AA’s.

    Sorry you can't see beyond the non-PC language of an eighty-year old book, but hey, when in doubt, lash out.
    Like what for example - a Muslim call to prayer, a Christian baptism, a Jewish funeral, a Black Mass, ... what?

    They state their programme is not a religious one and is open to believers, doubters and non-believers alike. Chapter 4, “We Agnostics” in The Big Book explains this clearly IMHO. Maybe read it sometime, with an open mind and no preconceived notions.
    Let’s say someone wanted to know how many citeogs had played in Junior B hurling finals in all counties since the inception of the GAA and s/he discovered that the data had never been captured, would it be fair to expect that your reaction would be the same? Would you describe the GAA’s data-set as flawed or would you say that the statistician was an eejit for expecting an organisation to gather information having no relevance to their day-to-day operation?

    AA does not gather names and addresses nor does it track the lives of its members. To expect an organisation like AA to have the data-sets to participate in a longitudinal study of its membership is as bone-headed a notion as the imaginary GAA study in the preceding paragraph.

    And bye-the-bye, who specifically decided that a study of the current status of ex AAs is useful or serves any real purpose, other than to keep statisticians and sociologists in work?
    I’m not sure what this sentence means in this context. I understand AA is anonymous, that it puts principles before personalities, is open to all who wish to engage in its programme and is demonstrably neither a religious organisation nor a pseudo religion.

    Oh and I have first hand feedback from clients I referred that it worked for them.

    Say what you like about AA, but it is religious. It advocates a higher power, a deity. It may help some people, but it is definitely religious (if not related to any particular denomination of religion).


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    sopretty wrote: »
    I just dislike seeing a thread dissecting AA. If anything was to put someone off seeking treatment, this one would!

    And would a thread dissecting the lack of efficacy, or harmful side effects, of a given cancer treatment stop people getting treatment for cancer? Or just stop them getting THAT PARTICULAR treatment for cancer?

    Putting people off getting treatment is the furthest intention from my mind. Finding methodologies by which we can steer people to the best treatment options is the idea.
    sopretty wrote: »
    AA has saved lives. There is no denying that.

    No one is denying it so much as pointing out how little that statement actually says. The fact is that if you implemented the most ridiculous program you could think of to help alcoholics, and rolled it out to 2 million people.... you will save lives. It is just a statistical truth that a program, no matter how nonsense or harmful, is going to work on some people. Be it by coincidence.... placebo.... or whatever.

    If I went out and knee capped the first 10,000 serious alcoholics I met and told them if they start drinking I would be back for the other knee cap..... I would save lives. SOME of them will simply never drink again.
    sopretty wrote: »
    I would hate to see someone who might benefit from AA being totally turned against it before they even checked it out.

    And I would have to see someone who might benefit from treatment select one with a 5% success rate, fail, and then give up on trying again. I would instead like them to have knowledge of the efficacy rates of all the treatment options available to them, and select as a first port of call the one at the top of the list.

    Alas that is currently data we just do not have. Which is the biggest problem with AA to my mind. An unregulated, highly variable, treatment regime not studied adequately for efficacy or potential improvement, run on an ad hoc basis on the ground by people full of good intentions but little guidance or knowledge.... is over all not a good thing.


  • #62
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    celticcrash wrote: »
    There is no other organization who can come close to help so many alcoholics stay of the drink long term.

    Do you have any figures to support this assertion?
    celticcrash wrote: »
    It would be impossible to do a proper study on AA, as most of its members want to stay anonymous.

    There are anonymous methodologies to collate data. "Anonymous" is not an excuse to throw ones hands in the air and simply not try. We do it in medicine all the time.

    Also given this lack of statistics.... on what grounds do you make a highly statistically based claim as the one above? You are in one breath telling us that statistics simply can not be complied, but in the breath before us telling us that no other organisation is statistically as good as AA. Which is it then? It can not be both.


  • #63
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    nozzferrathoo - you will NEVER get statistics, names, performance results lol from AA. Ever.
    First of all, there is the complete and utter anonymity of AA. This is what makes it so attractive to people.
    AA is conducted on a first name basis only - in fact - you could invent a name for yourself if you felt like it.
    How on earth would AA HQ ever begin to measure 'performance' or 'success' rates.
    By the completely anonymous nature of the organisation, names etc. are irrelevant.
    You don't get a little questionnaire every time you attend an AA meeting looking for your name and how many days you were sober!! Your psychiatrist/counsellor might ask you? Whether you lie or not is open to anyone's guess!
    You're looking at AA as if it was a regular scientific sort of reviewable group of therapists!
    It's not!!! It's completely and utterly different. I don't get why you're trying to discredit AA. There is no money to be made out of AA. None. The reason psychologists/psychiatrists are not allowed into CLOSED meetings, is that 'the only requirement for membership is a DESIRE TO STOP DRINKING'.
    While a psychologist might have an interest in alcoholism, basically, AA operates on the basis that we really only engage with each other when we trust that we're all coming from the same base line . I would never share as honestly and openly with a professional, as I would with an AA member. It's just completely different.


  • #64
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    And would a thread dissecting the lack of efficacy, or harmful side effects, of a given cancer treatment stop people getting treatment for cancer? Or just stop them getting THAT PARTICULAR treatment for cancer?

    Putting people off getting treatment is the furthest intention from my mind. Finding methodologies by which we can steer people to the best treatment options is the idea.



    No one is denying it so much as pointing out how little that statement actually says. The fact is that if you implemented the most ridiculous program you could think of to help alcoholics, and rolled it out to 2 million people.... you will save lives. It is just a statistical truth that a program, no matter how nonsense or harmful, is going to work on some people. Be it by coincidence.... placebo.... or whatever.

    If I went out and knee capped the first 10,000 serious alcoholics I met and told them if they start drinking I would be back for the other knee cap..... I would save lives. SOME of them will simply never drink again.



    And I would have to see someone who might benefit from treatment select one with a 5% success rate, fail, and then give up on trying again. I would instead like them to have knowledge of the efficacy rates of all the treatment options available to them, and select as a first port of call the one at the top of the list.

    Alas that is currently data we just do not have. Which is the biggest problem with AA to my mind. An unregulated, highly variable, treatment regime not studied adequately for efficacy or potential improvement, run on an ad hoc basis on the ground by people full of good intentions but little guidance or knowledge.... is over all not a good thing.

    You are underestimating alcoholics and the power of the illness if you think that being told to stare at a dot will get them through their cravings.
    My brain is the keenest sceptic you will come across. I am not an exceptional alcoholic. I am a typical one!
    I've had people tell me, go to AA, go into hospital, I've gone to hospital, I've gone to AA, I've gone to rehab, I've taken librium in Rehab and outside on my own at home, I've gone cold turkey, I've spent time in a psychiatric hospital, I have prayed, gotten down on my knees, all the things you could possibly do.
    To come out with a statement that 5% of alcoholics would quit drinking by staring at a dot on a wall is the most ignorant, ill-informed, idiotic statement I have ever read in relation to alcoholism - and believe me - I've read some sh1te!! That you believe it yourself is more disturbing!!!


  • #65
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    sopretty wrote: »
    nozzferrathoo - you will NEVER get statistics, names, performance results lol from AA. Ever.

    Who knows. You do not know the future. Nor do I. Yet only one of us is pretending to.

    I would hope that as our knowledge of addiction grows, that a true epidemiology of research will be invested in and opened up around it, proper and correct procedures and best practices for treatment programmes will be formed, and ad hoc woo based programs like AA will be consigned to the corner with snake oils and other nonsense alternative therapies subscribed to by only a fringe crowd.

    That is my ideal hope anyway. I can but dream, and do what little I can to cause change where I can and when.
    sopretty wrote: »
    I don't get why you're trying to discredit AA.

    Then you simply have not been reading the posts I have populated the thread with. Because I have made my basis and my motivations as clear in them as is humanly possible.
    sopretty wrote: »
    You are underestimating alcoholics and the power of the illness if you think that being told to stare at a dot will get them through their cravings.

    Not really. Because I am not suggesting staring at a dot will do any such thing. I am suggesting that statistically no matter how nonsense or bogus your program is, there will be a number of success stories out of it, and people willing to testify to their death bed that your program "saved" them.

    This has nothing to do with alcoholics specifically. It is true in many areas of discourse. From addiction treatments, to alternative medicines, to nonsense dietary programmers.

    There is a certain base line % of success you expect to statistically get NO MATTER THE TREATMENT. That figure is around 5% which as has been pointed out recently is the exact figure of the success rate we see in AAs own internal documents, on the rare occasion we get to see them.

    You can throw out invective like "ill informed" and "iditotic" until your face turns blue and you end up needing a drink. But what I am saying is simply a statistical fact. Like it or not.

    If you are reading my posts as saying staring at the dot will actually help them.... then you are simply mis reading my post. I can only advise you pocket the invective and your rage.... and re-read it again. Otherwise we are in danger of losing "SoPretty" and gaining "SoPetty".


  • #66
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Ah here - this has gone beyond ridiculous at this stage! Good luck!


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Ivaniayo wrote: »
    I know several people that were helped greatly by the AA when they were at their wits end, and their families were supported by Al Anon. I wouldn't be for trying to slur their reputation as a whole.
    celticcrash wrote: »
    There is no other organization who can come close to help so many alcoholics stay of the drink long term.

    It would be impossible to do a proper study on AA, as most of its members
    want to stay anonymous. AA does not keep any kind of record of who or how many people come to meetings.
    sopretty wrote: »
    nozzferrathoo - you will NEVER get statistics, names, performance results lol from AA. Ever.
    First of all, there is the complete and utter anonymity of AA. This is what makes it so attractive to people.
    You're looking at AA as if it was a regular scientific sort of reviewable group of therapists!
    It's not!!! It's completely and utterly different. I don't get why you're trying to discredit AA. There is no money to be made out of AA. None. The reason psychologists/psychiatrists are not allowed into CLOSED meetings, is that 'the only requirement for membership is a DESIRE TO STOP DRINKING'.

    This is the "sacred cow" mentality I referred to in my previous post. Anything which even suggests that AA might not work, or might not be brilliantly effective is leapt on and attacked for all sorts of various reasons.

    Why are we not allowed to ask whether AA works? What is the problem with pausing for a second and asking, "Hey, should we be recommending AA to people"?

    celticcrash claims that "There is no other organization who can come close to help so many alcoholics stay of the drink long term." and in the next breath says that there are no records. Eh, conflicting much?

    How can anyone claim that AA has any benefit statistically if AA do not collect any statistics?

    Why don't we let people just go to AA, if it works for them, what's the problem, right? Yeah, definitely.
    The problem is when doctors and psychiatrists recommend AA as treatment, partially or entirely, then you're getting into the medical area, and damned if you need to be able to prove the effectiveness of a medical treatment before you can recommend it.

    Would you be happy with a doctor recommending an alcoholic go see a witchdoctor or an homeopath to get treatment for their alcoholism?

    No doubt that witchdoctors and homeopathy can and does work for some alcoholics. But that doesn't mean they're good recommendations to make.

    That's all we're asking - does AA work?

    There is no evidence that it does. There is no evidence that the number of AA members who stay off alcohol long-term is higher than the natural rate of abstinence for former alcoholics.
    And if you can't prove that something works, doctors and psychiatrists should not be recommending it.


  • #68
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    seamus wrote: »
    This is the "sacred cow" mentality I referred to in my previous post. Anything which even suggests that AA might not work, or might not be brilliantly effective is leapt on and attacked for all sorts of various reasons.

    Why are we not allowed to ask whether AA works? What is the problem with pausing for a second and asking, "Hey, should we be recommending AA to people"?

    celticcrash claims that "There is no other organization who can come close to help so many alcoholics stay of the drink long term." and in the next breath says that there are no records. Eh, conflicting much?

    How can anyone claim that AA has any benefit statistically if AA do not collect any statistics?

    Why don't we let people just go to AA, if it works for them, what's the problem, right? Yeah, definitely.
    The problem is when doctors and psychiatrists recommend AA as treatment, partially or entirely, then you're getting into the medical area, and damned if you need to be able to prove the effectiveness of a medical treatment before you can recommend it.

    Would you be happy with a doctor recommending an alcoholic go see a witchdoctor or an homeopath to get treatment for their alcoholism?

    No doubt that witchdoctors and homeopathy can and does work for some alcoholics. But that doesn't mean they're good recommendations to make.

    That's all we're asking - does AA work?

    There is no evidence that it does. There is no evidence that the number of AA members who stay off alcohol long-term is higher than the natural rate of abstinence for former alcoholics.
    And if you can't prove that something works, doctors and psychiatrists should not be recommending it.

    Why don't you look at statistics from rehab centres as a starting point? They will have admission figures. They may not have figures on how long a 'patient' remained sober, but they will have figures on the % who dropped out.
    You all seem to want facts and figures. The only fact available is that NO facts, figures, statistics will ever be made available by AA.
    Even the rehab centres - how do you judge whether a person is still sober a year later or 5 years later? Is it the amount of aftercare meetings they've attended? Do you take their word for it? Do you look at their car to see if it's relatively new? Do you do liver function tests?
    Why would any recovering alcoholic ever want to comply with any long-term study? It is A DAY AT A TIME. I personally would never want to satisfy some nosey parker's interest in my sobriety. It is a very personal and difficult journey . I am no statistic, nor do I wish to be.


  • #69
    celticcrash
    Registered Users Posts: 850 ✭✭✭celticcrash


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Do you have any figures to support this assertion?



    There are anonymous methodologies to collate data. "Anonymous" is not an excuse to throw ones hands in the air and simply not try. We do it in medicine all the time.

    Also given this lack of statistics.... on what grounds do you make a highly statistically based claim as the one above? You are in one breath telling us that statistics simply can not be complied, but in the breath before us telling us that no other organisation is statistically as good as AA. Which is it then? It can not be both.
    Yes, 2 ears and 2 eyes. 67 meetings in Limerick alone. (in one week)
    Now you tell me who or what comes close to that.
    People on here who have first hand experience with AA meetings
    have the goodness to come on here to try to explain what the meetings
    are like.
    You disregard and disrespect what we are saying, because you read ONE book. (one book)
    It just shows that you are dogmatic in your narrow views.
    I know some fanatical religious people who are more broad minded than you and thats coming from an atheist.


  • #70
    Ivaniayo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10 ✭Ivaniayo


    AA does not work in every case, no one is claiming that.
    I know several people that were helped greatly by the AA when they were at their wits end and at complete rock bottom, and their families were very well supported by Al Anon. I also know people who did not find success battling their affliction this time round.
    I for one am very glad that the AA exists.
    Is every AA member, group facilitator and meeting absolutely perfect in every way conceivable ?
    No, nothing in life works that way, and I certainly wouldn't be one for trying to slur the AA's reputation as a whole.
    If anyone is in trouble I would not be discouraging them from trying the AA, no one there gives a shyte if you are atheist or theist, its about people helping people, not belief/non belief politics, were sick of hearing that elsewhere, we don't need it in the AA as well.


  • #71
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    And yet the same literature speaks against using other means of recovery in parallel such as professional psychotherapy. ...
    Where in AA literature do you imagine you came across that gem of dis-information?

    AA members are frequently invited into professionally run treatment centres and mental hospitals where doctors, including eminent psychiatrists, nurses and other health professionals see the contributions made by recovering AA members at these "open meetings" as vital to their clients' recovery.

    AA locally and at a global level participates willingly, but only by invitation. They carry a message of hope and recovery and nothing else.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    {..}

    I think your second last paragraph is both needless and insensitive considering the issue at hand. I'd think better of you if you were to remove it and put it down to a momentary lapse of judgement caused by the insults targeted at yourself.


  • #73
    celticcrash
    Registered Users Posts: 850 ✭✭✭celticcrash


    67 meetings in Limerick each week. 67 meetings in Limerick each week.
    67 meetings in Limerick each week. 67 meetings in Limerick each week.
    67 meetings in Limerick each week. 67 meetings in Limerick each week.
    67 meetings in Limerick each week. 67 meetings in Limerick each week.
    67 meetings in Limerick each week. 67 meetings in Limerick each week.
    67 meetings in Limerick each week. 67 meetings in Limerick each week.
    67 meetings in Limerick each week. 67 meetings in Limerick each week.

    We know AA works.
    Theres people on here who are not satisfied with this number.
    They want the scientists to come and measure the members soberity.
    And maybe have the Government in there to regulate the unruly drunks.

    Yes AA members are are sensitive and defensive about AA.
    Knocking something that can save peoples lives is very dangerous.
    Its playing with peoples lives.
    So please dont knock something that we know saves peoples lives.


  • #74
    Waking-Dreams
    Closed Accounts Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Waking-Dreams


    I think all that has been asked for, as Seamus and others put it, is where’s the evidence that the number of AA members who stay off alcohol long-term are higher than the natural rate of abstinence for former alcoholics?

    Those in favour of AA, and by the sounds of it with personal experience, have been unable to provide this information, even stating (and I’m paraphrasing here), ‘you will never get any such evidence because AA doesn’t collect that kind of data’.

    Okay. So then all you’re left to determine its effectiveness is personal testimony, and the amount of meetings that are on, yes? This does not tell us anything about the natural rate of abstinence for former alcoholics. Stating there’s 67 meetings a week only tells us how popular AA is; it says nothing about it being better than other treatments or whether members would have quit without going to AA.

    I think those who are struggling with this line of reasoning would find the area of Attribution Bias quite interesting to read up on.


  • #75
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Waking-Dreams wrote: »
    I think all that has been asked for, as Seamus and others put it, is where’s the evidence that the number of AA members who stay off alcohol long-term are higher than the natural rate of abstinence for former alcoholics? ... .
    If that's what you think, maybe you need to read the thread title, the OP and re-read some of the posts again.

    If that was the real topic for discussion why is the thread title A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious? . The question asked has been answered several times by referring to AA literature (the response to this was that both AA and its literature tell lies :D )

    The real issue here is not whether AA is effective or not but whether despite its effectiveness / ineffectiveness, how dare anyone dispute the accusations of perceived religiosity.


  • #76
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    I suppose to answer the OP's question, I could say that the amount of people who follow religion in AA is completely typical of any cross-section of current Irish society.
    It's a bit like asking, are all alcoholics unemployed school drop-outs?
    Again, the answer would be typical of all cross-sections of society.
    You have the long term unemployed, the recently unemployed, solicitors, doctors, nurses, accountants, secretaries, builders, labourers, post-men, sports-people, barmen, bar-women, guards, priests, teachers, architects, businessmen, politicians, musicians, singer, housewives etc.
    Alcoholism doesn't discriminate against any of us.
    AA is a complete and utter cross section of society with members who have one common link - they are alcoholics.


  • #77
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Waking-Dreams wrote: »
    I think all that has been asked for, as Seamus and others put it, is where’s the evidence that the number of AA members who stay off alcohol long-term are higher than the natural rate of abstinence for former alcoholics?

    Those in favour of AA, and by the sounds of it with personal experience, have been unable to provide this information, even stating (and I’m paraphrasing here), ‘you will never get any such evidence because AA doesn’t collect that kind of data’.

    Okay. So then all you’re left to determine its effectiveness is personal testimony, and the amount of meetings that are on, yes? This does not tell us anything about the natural rate of abstinence for former alcoholics. Stating there’s 67 meetings a week only tells us how popular AA is; it says nothing about it being better than other treatments or whether members would have quit without going to AA.

    I think those who are struggling with this line of reasoning would find the area of Attribution Bias quite interesting to read up on.

    Why are you so interested in statistics? Go to the CADS, the addiction psychiatrists, the rehab facilities! They will have statistics for you!
    The thing about AA is that when you're a raging alcoholic, maybe still holding down a good job, maybe still holding high regard in your community, with children and perhaps a husband whose own reputation depends on yours, the anonymity of AA is the critical thing to initially appeal to you.
    When you attend any of the 'professional services', it is documented.
    When you attend AA it is not! There is no record, no signing in, no obligation to attend, nothing. AA is just a bunch of recovered or recovering alcoholics who help each other along.
    It is not a medical, religious, political or any other sort of organisation.
    It is quite literally, a bunch of sober, hopefully recovered ex-drunks! You can't underestimate the comraderie/companionship/feeling at home/feeling understood, that an alcoholic can achieve at a meeting and by chatting with other AA members.
    I have told AA members things I wouldn't even tell a priest in a confession box!
    There's just an indescribable connection with members, where it's like you're all holding onto each other in order to survive.
    It's not medical or otherwise. It will never provide statistics for the simple reason that it's not really measurable.


  • #78
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    sopretty wrote: »
    ... Go to the CADS, the addiction psychiatrists, the rehab facilities! They will have statistics for you! ...
    You make a very good point!!

    The HRB gathers, collates, massages and disseminates statistical information about health-related matters in Ireland, including all residential alcohol and drug treatment centres, out-patient centres, after-care facilities, detox locations, mental health hospitals and community initiatives. These various services offer treatments that are both 12-step based as well as treatments based on other modalities.

    The HRB is the obvious place to ask questions on the success rates of the various treatments available for alcohol, drug, gambling and other dependencies. The health insurers would be another rich source of stats as they fund alcohol drug and other treatments in residential centres that use the 12-step, "Minnesota Model" or other.

    Addition: I just noticed on the HRB website the drug-related deaths continue to climb (2010 & 2011, the latest published figures as of 24/01/2014 !!!) while the HSEs continue to pump money into their personality-led "drug and alcohol education programmes".

    http://www.hrb.ie/about/in-the-news/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=494&tx_ttnews[backPid]=19&cHash=787f3bd9c9d10d5cc6665a514292cadf


  • #79
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    sopretty wrote: »
    <snip>

    How do you reconcile that with the fact that under the latest figures available from the AA (1989, you have to wonder about an organisation which doesn't publish success figures for 25 years) show a success rate of 5%, a figure that is no better than a person going cold turkey with no other help?

    How do AA do any good when you've exact same chance of quitting by staying at home on meeting nights?


  • #80
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    mathepac wrote: »
    <snip>

    Mathepac, how do you reconcile your not very polite ranting against us evidence based people with the fact that even on their own figure (vastly out of date as they are) the AA are no good?


  • #81
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    sopretty wrote: »
    Ah here - this has gone beyond ridiculous at this stage! Good luck!

    It went beyond ridiculous when you started making the baseless claims about AA and Mathepac went on the highly offensive rants about those who didn't bow and scrape in front of gilded altar of AA. Not when the likes of nozz started showing how ridiculously bad AA are.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    It went beyond ridiculous when you started making the baseless claims about AA and Mathepac went on the highly offensive rants about those who didn't bow and scrape in front of gilded altar of AA. Not when the likes of nozz started showing how ridiculously bad AA are.

    If you could provide me with any other solution to alcoholism, I would clutch at it. Please please provide me with a solution.


  • #83
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    It is also worth noting that a lot of suicides are by alcoholics (anecdotally of course). I've been diagnosed as being alcohol dependent. That's nice.


  • #84
    Waking-Dreams
    Closed Accounts Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Waking-Dreams


    This argument from others has come up a few times now: "It will never provide statistics for the simple reason that it's not really measurable".

    And yet there are several posters here more than happy to make statements about its effectiveness based on… a measurement. After all, where are they getting the notion that it works if they’re not measuring it somehow?

    So, it’s measurable when people want to claim it works but the moment anyone questions whether AA is more effective than, say, doing nothing or some other treatment, we’re told ‘it’s not really measurable’?

    This game of placing AA behind a protective shield where it can’t be fairly scrutinised is the kind of thing you encounter when it comes to lots of ineffective treatments. You hear it all the time in quack medicine. Statements like: “It works because I know it works” only demonstrates that some people believe what they want to believe. And, I personally think that kind of skewed thinking is probably more powerful than any substance addiction.

    Look, people change because something in them makes a decision to change. Could be months or years before that days comes. The person might attribute the change to an outside force or whatever, but deep down they can never know for sure whether they would have got there without that outside influence. Because, if you think about it, you can’t splice your existence in two and choose different paths at the same time for the sake of a comparison.

    For example, people might take alternative medicines and then claim their ailment got better. But by taking the medicines they then never got to test out whether taking nothing at all would have produced the exact same result at that moment in time.

    But that’s the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy for you.


  • #85
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Mathepac, how do you reconcile your not very polite ranting against us evidence based people with the fact that even on their own figure (vastly out of date as they are) the AA are no good?
    I have no problem being accused of ranting against posts I see as pure drivel about the perceived religiosity of AA / 12-step programmes.

    What evidence (numbers/stats/figures/etc) have you produced about the effectiveness of any alternatives to 12-step treatment for substance dependency?

    That would be none then.

    BTW just for accuracy's sake, "the AA" fix cars, talk to Conor Faughnan.


  • #86
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Waking-Dreams wrote: »
    This argument has come up a few times now: It will never provide statistics for the simple reason that it's not really measurable... .
    What I said was that a voluntary organisation that wasn't set up to gather and analyse data can't be accused of ineffectiveness because it doesn't gather and analyse data. It's rather like saying the HSE is ineffective because it doesn't feed enough horses.


  • #87
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    It went beyond ridiculous when ... Mathepac went on the highly offensive rants ....
    If you find my posts offensive report me to the mods and point out who apart from yourself could possibly be offended by anything I posted.

    Unlike other posts / posters in the thread I confined my comments to post content and not individual posters.
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    ... Not when the likes of nozz started showing how ridiculously bad AA are.
    Whoever s/he is, s/he / they (and other posters) have failed to show anything of the kind, quite the reverse in point of fact.


  • #88
    Waking-Dreams
    Closed Accounts Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Waking-Dreams


    mathepac wrote: »
    What I said was that a voluntary organisation that wasn't set up to gather and analyse data can't be accused of ineffectiveness because it doesn't gather and analyse data. It's rather like saying the HSE is ineffective because it doesn't feed enough horses.

    If it can’t be accused of ineffectiveness by measurement then, by the same token, it can’t be accused of effectiveness either (yet that’s what people are doing) because, as you say, it doesn’t gather and analyse data.

    Bit of a self-contradicting argument put forward there.


  • #89
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    I've read over the more recent posts on this thread and it seems to have taken a change in focus.
    The initial query was whether AA was religious. I've put forward my opinion on that.
    Two other queries seem to have evolved out of the discussion since:
    A) Does AA work better than non-attendance at AA?
    B) Why can't we get statistics on the efficacy of AA?

    My personal answer to A, is that I have no idea, for the simple reason that question B exists!

    But in answer to B, I'll try to explain it a bit more:

    First of all, if anyone is genuinely concerned or interested, I would suggest they email/otherwise contact AA's central office - I'm sure the contact details are on the website.
    That said, you're talking about an extremely complex issue here. You're not talking about something which can even be definitively diagnosed for a start! As I said, my 'diagnosis' is that I am 'alcohol dependent'.
    So - you have the issue first of all with defining and diagnosing alcoholism. Is the functioning PAYE-paying worker who drinks a bottle or sometimes more of wine a night an alcoholic? Is the fella who goes without drink Monday to Thursday and then drinks solidly from 5pm on Friday to 10pm Sunday night an alcoholic? Is the 'layabout' who drinks solidly all day long, 7 days a week, actually just a layabout, or are they alcoholic? What about the fella who stays off it for weeks and then goes on a bender for a whole week? Is he an alcoholic? The mother who keeps herself slightly topped up all day long, but never becomes visibly drunk - is she an alcoholic? How do you define it?
    AA doesn't really distinguish between the above dudes/dudettes. As I've stated before on the thread, the only requirement for membership is a DESIRE TO STOP DRINKING.
    AA literature, in its chapter There is a Solution, goes some way to try to find/define a difference between moderate drinkers/heavy drinkers/alcoholics. I'd also recommend reading the chapter More about Alcoholism.
    AA literature also states that while there is no way to definitively say (I sound like the garda ombudsman here lol) whether you are or are not an alcoholic, that you can get a fair idea by simply going to a bar, starting to drink and seeing whether you can easily stop after one or two drinks.
    I do not know how psychiatrists or therapists measure or define alcoholism, but I suppose they treat all levels of alcohol dependence similarly (pretty much the same as AA!).

    Now this is where the real difficulty lies!! You see, if you're not a pure and utter raging alcoholic, any treatment you undergo will likely be much more effective than anything undertook by the pure and utter alcoholic.
    So, while you may have a man or woman who drank daily, but then got a health scare, while they might be dependent, but not addicted, they will not suffer much ill effects (mentally) by quitting completely.
    A pure and utter alcoholic on the other hand will not, even with the best of intentions and therapies (only from personal experience!) be even remotely content on quitting. They are frequently 'restless, irritable and discontented'. What we'd call a 'dry drunk'. They can become depressed and even suicidal.

    So - how do you measure the efficacy of a treatment when you can't really distinguish between what might be a control group (random cross-section of society), a bunch of alcohol dependent people and a bunch of pure and utter pathological alcoholics?

    If the medics would begin to definitively define 'alcoholism', then that would be a start!

    Hope this post has made some sense. Hard to adequately express what I'm thinking!


  • #90
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Also - just to add - there are two more questions!

    What time limit do you set while measuring the efficacy of a treatment? 3 months? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? Till death do us part?

    and.....

    How do you measure the quality of the recovery? If a fella hasn't touched a drop in 7 years, but has attempted suicide 3 times during that period, is that treatment/lack of treatment, to be considered effective?
    Or, if you've a woman who gave it up because social workers were on her case, who is now addicted to valium, is she considered recovered? Was her treatment/lack of treatment effective?
    What about the fella who is happy as Larry for three months and who then goes on a massive bender and ends up in jail for being drunk and disorderly, was his treatment or lack of it effective?

    These are just some of the reasons why I am stating that recovery rates through various treatments isn't really measurable.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    sopretty wrote: »
    If you could provide me with any other solution to alcoholism, I would clutch at it. Please please provide me with a solution.

    Standing on your head reciting the US constitution backwards is as good a solution as the AA given the numbers.

    But if you want a proper solution go to a psychiatrist (sp?) who has expertise in the area. Ask your GP.


  • #92
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Standing on your head reciting the US constitution backwards is as good a solution as the AA given the numbers.

    But if you want a proper solution go to a psychiatrist (sp?) who has expertise in the area. Ask your GP.

    If you had bothered to read any of my posts, you would know that I attend a psychiatrist (the addiction consultant for this region). In fact it was him who told me that people who attend AA generally do better!


  • #93
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Waking-Dreams wrote: »
    This argument has come up a few times now: It will never provide statistics for the simple reason that the AA know that their "solution" doesn't work, and any figures will show their lack of effectiveness.

    Fixed your post. And yes this sentence does make sense unlike yours. Figuring out the number of people who are no longer alcaholics is pretty easy if you are really interested in doing so.

    For example you just go back to those who enrolled, do a properly random sample take bloods from everybody in each of the sample groups to find who's off the drink and who's not (and other things like what help they get in addition to AA, their general cirucumstances &c in order to help your analysis) and from those groups you can do a proper statistical analysis of the data and come up with a pretty good figure for how effective the AA is, or how much of an effect the AA has if its part of a multi-disciplinary approach.

    This kind of stuff is being done all the time for physical and mental illnesses, its part of the approval requirements for medical treatments around the world as is.

    So don't go around telling us it can't be done when it is already being done for alcaholism treatment drugs.


  • #94
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    sopretty wrote: »
    If you had bothered to read any of my posts, you would know that I attend a psychiatrist (the addiction consultant for this region). In fact it was him who told me that people who attend AA generally do better!

    Ask him for evidence and watch him squirm trying to duck out of having to provide some for you. And if he says he doesn't have to give it to you run for the hills. Because all the evidence says that my treatment plan is as good as the AAs.

    Though to be honest, I'd run from him right now, because any medical professional willing to give you advice without any backing evidence is as bad as a homeopath or a a "faith healer".


  • #95
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Ask him for evidence and watch him squirm trying to duck out of having to provide some for you. And if he says he doesn't have to give it to you run for the hills. Because all the evidence says that my treatment plan is as good as the AAs.

    Though to be honest, I'd run from him right now, because any medical professional willing to give you advice without any backing evidence is as bad as a homeopath or a a "faith healer".

    Lol - specialist doctors/counsellors/psychiatrists have been unable to find a solution for years.

    So - on the one hand you're telling me to go to a psychiatrist. I tell you I'm attending one with years of experience specifically in the speciality of addiction, and now you're telling me he's some sort of 'faith healer'.

    Your 'arguments' (and I use that term loosely!!) are becoming increasingly ridiculous.


  • #96
    Waking-Dreams
    Closed Accounts Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Waking-Dreams


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Fixed your post. And yes this sentence does make sense unlike yours.

    That wasn't my sentence. I was putting it in bold to highlight it and then the rest of the text underneath it points out why that statement doesn't hold water. Maybe I didn't make that clear.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    rwg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 445 ✭✭rwg


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Standing on your head reciting the US constitution backwards is as good a solution as the AA given the numbers.

    But if you want a proper solution go to a psychiatrist (sp?) who has expertise in the area. Ask your GP.


    Do you have the figures for those who have effectively recovered from alcoholism by standing on their head and reciting the constitution?

    Or are you just talking sh1te?


  • #98
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Waking-Dreams wrote: »
    If it can’t be accused of ineffectiveness by measurement then, by the same token, it can’t be accused of effectiveness either (yet that’s what people are doing) because, as you say, it doesn’t gather and analyse data.

    Bit of a self-contradicting argument put forward there.
    Not at all, your post is arrant nonsense. Like other would-be critics and detractors, your post shows clearly you don't understand AA as an organisation or its philosophy.

    Who appointed you (or anyone else) an AA / 12-step effectiveness inspector? As a non-member, if that's what you are, what AA does or does not do is none of your business. Unless and until you develop a drinking problem and I sincerely hope you don't, then just jog on, there's nothing there for you.

    AA is a free, (meetings, soft-copy literature, etc.) voluntary organisation, and each local group is run independently by its members for its members and anyone who wants to can join AA / NA / GA for free, provided they want to stop drinking / drugging / gambling / etc - the solitary requirement for membership.

    Members of any local AA / NA / GA group owe you no allegiance, they don't ask for your money, they don't take your money or anyone else's, they neither want nor need your help (and haven't for the last 80 or so years) so why do you think you can butt in on their business?

    So why not start by educating yourself about AA before posting any more nonsense; I've already provided links to all the information you need and all there is to know.


  • #99
    Amazingfun
    Registered Users Posts: 3,161 ✭✭✭Amazingfun


    sopretty wrote: »
    Nozzferratthoo - the thing about AA is, that every single member has walked in those doors, beaten, broken and hopeless. When you hear anyone doing a chair (basically telling their story/experience of addiction and recovery), particularly the old timers, you will generally hear statements about their first encounters of AA, where God might have been mentioned during the meetings, where they said to themselves 'Jaysus - is this the Moonies or what?' 'Oh FFS, this lot must be <insert name of any random religion here>' or 'This is a bloomin' cult - get me out of here!'
    Alcoholics in addiction are possibly the most irreligious bunch you could come across.
    I would say these days that a vast majority of members have struggled with the spiritual aspect. There is no need to force that. Most of the long-timers I know just stayed sober a day at a time, and the rest fell into place eventually.

    Bill (I think?) had gotten sober and had his spiritual experience. But then he found himself craving a drink! Again! So, he got the notion he'd try to find another alcoholic who needed help. He found one (was it Bob?), chatted to him, and stayed sober. He got through the craving (if you have never experienced a craving or compulsion, the significance of that will be lost on you probably - but it's like every cell in your body, including the particularly vocal cells in your brain are SCREAMING AT YOU TO JUST HAVE A DRINK!!!)

    That is how AA grew organically. Speaking with other alcoholics kept them sober.

    AA is not a group of psychiatrists/psychologists/medics/quacks 'marketing' their way. AA is a group of cynical, skeptical, previously desperate drunks, who have managed to stay sober. There are no dues or fees in AA. It is entirely self supporting and non-profitable.

    The book suggests a programme of recovery (a list of steps which helped the first 100 people to get and stay sober).

    The 12 traditions of AA are extremely important to AA. It's quite the miracle when you think of it. Millions of raging alcos managing to keep manners on themselves ;)

    For me, in the early days there were two things that I found great concepts. The first one was to go in and listen and look for similarities in what people were saying, rather than differences, to my own story. I really didn't have to try too hard :D
    And secondly, the concept of 'a day at a time'.

    So, basically, while I'm not endorsing nor defending AA, I'm just trying to explain a bit more about it to anyone interested. Some members are hilarious, some are serious, some are religious (no higher rate than any cross section of our society), some are as mad as a box of frogs, but while I don't like all of them, I have a heck of a lot in common with them! The vast majority of them are gifted story-tellers too lol.

    I've been in AA for many, many years, and this is just about the best description of it I've ever seen, lol. I'm impressed :)


  • #100
    Waking-Dreams
    Closed Accounts Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Waking-Dreams


    mathepac wrote: »
    Not at all, your post is arrant nonsense. Like other would-be critics and detractors, your post shows clearly you don't understand AA as an organisation or its philosophy.

    Who appointed you (or anyone else) an AA / 12-step effectiveness inspector? As a non-member, if that's what you are, what AA does or does not do is none of your business. Unless and until you develop a drinking problem and I sincerely hope you don't, then just jog on, there's nothing there for you.

    AA is a free, (meetings, soft-copy literature, etc.) voluntary organisation, and each local group is run independently by its members for its members and anyone who wants to can join AA / NA / GA for free, provided they want to stop drinking / drugging / gambling / etc - the solitary requirement for membership.

    Members of any local AA / NA / GA group owe you no allegiance, they don't ask for your money, they don't take your money or anyone else's, they neither want nor need your help (and haven't for the last 80 or so years) so why do you think you can butt in on their business?

    So why not start by educating yourself about AA before posting any more nonsense; I've already provided links to all the information you need and all there is to know.
    Again, you didn’t address the point. Why not? I think it’s because you know that by claiming AA is effective for many individuals while trying to assert that it can never be measured is about as contradictory as it gets.

    In short, your response is more or less saying: “Who the heck do you think you are questioning AA? It’s none of your damn business. It’s voluntary and non-profit. Go read up more and come back when you have nice things to say”.

    Sacred cows indeed.

    You freely admit that AA is not evidence-based and it never will be. Fine. Therefore, it is faith-based (faith meaning belief in the absence of evidence). And that’s why it merits critical discussion on this forum. You can provide all the links you want for us to read in order to come around to your point of view but this does not change the fact that it is a faith-based programme.

    I don’t think any more needs to be said.


  • #101
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Waking-Dreams wrote: »
    Again, you didn’t address the point. Why not? I think it’s because you know that by claiming AA is effective for many individuals while trying to assert that it can never be measured is about as contradictory as it gets.

    In short, your response is more or less saying: “Who the heck do you think you are questioning AA? It’s none of your damn business. It’s voluntary and non-profit. Go read up more and come back when you have nice things to say”.

    Sacred cows indeed.

    You freely admit that AA is not evidence-based and it never will be. Fine. Therefore, it is faith-based (faith meaning belief in the absence of evidence). And that’s why it merits critical discussion on this forum. You can provide all the links you want for us to read in order to come around to your point of view but this does not change the fact that it is a faith-based programme.

    I don’t think any more needs to be said.

    Arguably then, any medical intervention undertaken/agreed to by a patient is somewhat faith-based!
    When you put your trust in someone or something else - be it individual or institution, you are making a 'faith-based' decision.
    If you decide to undergo a medical procedure/treatment which has a 1% or 5% or even 20% success rate (say for e.g. in terms of cancer treatment), are you believing in some sort of quackery? Are you putting your 'faith' in something a bit random? Or are you simply taking the decision to avail of the best treatment available to you?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement