A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

marienbad · 15-04-2014 2:57pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

Yes. Me swearing on a bible would be a lie. Luckily there are alternatives.

Indeed and until affirmation came about it was a problem. But you do accept I am sure that the testimony of any atheist was just as likely to be true as that of a believer . It is the intention that counts.

But like Dev it was what was in your heart that counts

gaynorvader · 15-04-2014 3:05pm

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed and until affirmation came about it was a problem. But you do accept I am sure that the testimony of any atheist was just as likely to be true as that of a believer . It is the intention that counts.

But like Dev it was what was in your heart that counts

If I swear to tell the whole truth, then I will. If I swear to tell the truth on the bible, I've already lied in my mind. All the swearing aside however, I do agree that every group is probably equally as honest.

marienbad · 15-04-2014 3:17pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

If I swear to tell the whole truth, then I will. If I swear to tell the truth on the bible, I've already lied in my mind. All the swearing aside however, I do agree that every group is probably equally as honest.

Is that not a modern interpretation though ? Swearing originally meant an oath under God. Many atheists took took such an oath , were they lying ?

gaynorvader · 15-04-2014 3:27pm

marienbad wrote: »

Is that not a modern interpretation though ? Swearing originally meant an oath under God. Many atheists took took such an oath , were they lying ?

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure you could swear an oath to anything; your king, country, honour, wife, blood, life, etc. If you swear an oath on something you don't believe in then you are being duplicitous and deceiving at the very least.

roosh · 15-04-2014 3:34pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You could have expanded this, because step seven as written by AA basically admits that not alone are they a theistic system, but that they lot to a specific deity, viz the Abrahamic faiths' YHWH/god/Allah. Seriously there is no other possible conclusion.

And given the origins of AA, its place of birth, its parents (Dr. Bob and the other guy) and everything that surrounded that birth we can confidently and conclusively assert tha AA refers specifically and exclusively to the christian god, and excludes all others.

From the book Alcoholics Anonymous - Bill's Story

Despite the living example of my friend there remained in me the vestiges of my old prejudice. The word God still aroused a certain antipathy. When the thought was expressed that there might be a God personal to me this feeling was intensified. I didn't like the idea. I could go for such conceptions as Creative Intelligence, Universal Mind or Spirit of Nature but I resisted the thought of a Czar of the Heavens, however loving His sway might be. I have since talked with scores of men who felt the same way.

My friend suggested what then seemed a novel idea. He said, "Why don't you choose your own conception of God?"

That statement hit me hard. It melted the icy intellectual mountain in whose shadow I had lived and shivered many years. I stood in the sunlight at last.

It was only a matter of being willing to believe in a Power greater than myself. Nothing more was required of me to make my beginning.

That is from one of the "parents" of AA. I'm sure you will agree that the concepts of "Creative Intelligence, Universal Mind or Spirit of Nature" are closer akin to the pantheistic idea than the monotheistic, christian idea.

One of the "parents" also says, as per the earlier quote, "as we understood him" is the most important part of the AA vernacular. Even the Oxford groups, regardless of how Christian they were, spoke of a personal understanding of "God".

As has been mentioned, the book AA and the 12-steps were written after discussions between the earliest members, some of whom did not like the idea of "god", so the compromised language was used.

The idea that "as we understood him" is the most important part of the AA vernacular can be observed in the dynamics of the meetings, where, from my experience (and that of others) there is no pressure put on anyone to conform to any conception of "god", be it monotheistic, polytheistic, or panthesitic.

Some people might indeed subscribe to the christian conception, but there are those who do not and they are just as accommodated in the 12-step program as anyone else.

roosh · 15-04-2014 3:42pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

All pointing to the individual subconscious being a very small part of the Pantheistic God. It's like claiming you can control the flow of the ocean by flinging a cup of seawater.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. In what way does it point to it being a very small part?

A persons true nature is seen as being one with "god", that is a persons true nature is one and the same with the nature of "god". This is said to be realised by breaking through the emotional and psychological attachment to concepts and beliefs we have about our nature. When this is done we experience our own innate goodness and love, and our actions are directed from this, as opposed to being directed from our subconscious, habituated mind, often referred to as "the ego".

It isn't the individual subconscious which is part of "god", rather the more we cultivate awareness of our subconscious habits and thoughts we break the attachment to them and become more aware of our "true nature", which is said to be an innate goodness and love.

roosh · 15-04-2014 3:46pm

marienbad wrote: »

And in an AA context it doesn't matter what others believe ,it is only what you believe that counts.

Indeed, as per the quote from Bill Wilson in AAs Grapevine - it is "the most important" thing.

gaynorvader · 15-04-2014 4:24pm

roosh wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by this. In what way does it point to it being a very small part?

If God is the whole universe then an individual's subconscious is necessarily going to be a tiny, tiny part of it.

roosh wrote:

A persons true nature is seen as being one with "god", that is a persons true nature is one and the same with the nature of "god". This is said to be realised by breaking through the emotional and psychological attachment to concepts and beliefs we have about our nature. When this is done we experience our own innate goodness and love, and our actions are directed from this, as opposed to being directed from our subconscious, habituated mind, often referred to as "the ego".

It isn't the individual subconscious which is part of "god", rather the more we cultivate awareness of our subconscious habits and thoughts we break the attachment to them and become more aware of our "true nature", which is said to be an innate goodness and love.

Ok, so our "true nature" is what is part of God? This is honestly feeling more and more makey-uppy as we go into it.
So we turn our will, etc over to our "true nature" and hope it will take charge? Ask it/Him to remove our shortcomings? I'm not sure it all gels. How do you ask a force of nature for help?

sopretty · 15-04-2014 4:29pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

If God is the whole universe then an individual's subconscious is necessarily going to be a tiny, tiny part of it.

Ok, so our "true nature" is what is part of God? This is honestly feeling more and more makey-uppy as we go into it.
So we turn our will, etc over to our "true nature" and hope it will take charge? Ask it/Him to remove our shortcomings? I'm not sure it all gels. How do you ask a force of nature for help?

My interpretation of it would be that our 'pure nature' rather than our 'true nature' is aligned with 'God' or 'Godliness'. We allow our conscious minds or egos to take over, but if we can get back to, or tap into our pure nature, then we will be better human beings. Tough task though!

marienbad · 16-04-2014 12:24am

gaynorvader wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure you could swear an oath to anything; your king, country, honour, wife, blood, life, etc. If you swear an oath on something you don't believe in then you are being duplicitous and deceiving at the very least.

I think you are incorrect here , swearing oath is invoking God . Including your life , your wife etc is just a surety

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

roosh · 16-04-2014 12:59am

gaynorvader wrote: »

If God is the whole universe then an individual's subconscious is necessarily going to be a tiny, tiny part of it.

I'm not sure what the point is. Essentially, the universe exists as a single entity, according to pantheist philosophy, at least. Everyone and everything is part of that single entity. I'm not sure why the relative size of any of the parts is pertinent.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Ok, so our "true nature" is what is part of God? This is honestly feeling more and more makey-uppy as we go into it.
So we turn our will, etc over to our "true nature" and hope it will take charge? Ask it/Him to remove our shortcomings? I'm not sure it all gels. How do you ask a force of nature for help?

We can look at it from two angles: firstly, the idea that the universe is a single entity, of which we are a part. This single entity is what is referred to as "god".

We can also look at it from the perspective of the practicalities of it, namely the practice of meditation. The practice of meditation serves to help cultivate awareness of our subconscious thought processes and habits. Through awareness we can loosen and, possibly, even break our subconscious attachment to the conditioned beliefs that we have about ourselves. The more we loosen these subconscious attachments the closer we come to our innate nature, which is said to be truly compassionate, loving, and possess innate, true happiness. This is something which can be investigated.

As we loosen this subconscious attachment our thinking and actions are driven more and more from this innate nature, rather than the subconscious, habitual thinking that we are conditioned with. This innate nature is said to be one and the same with "god", because it is the realisation of our unity with everything else that helps to break the conditioned beliefs we have about ourselves and others - where we generally see ourselves as separate and distinct from everything else.

So, we can make a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of "God" as we understand him. This decision is simply a decision to carry on working the steps with the faith - a dirty word for some, I know - that working through the steps will help to change the subconscious, habitual thinking that has driven the addictive behaviour. It's a decision to try and break that subconscious conditioning.

When we talk about "faith" here it is, or at least can be, nothing more than faith that the steps will work. It isn't blind faith in an anthropomorphic god. In a similar way that we might have faith in a builder to do a good job building our house, bcos we have seen the job he did for someone else, people might have faith in the steps bcos they see other people who have worked through them and achieved sobriety.

Again, the idea of "asking" for shortcomings to be removed could be seen in the context of the practice of "Loving Kindness", where phrases like "May such and such a person be happy..." etc. We could say "May our shortcomings be removed...". It isn't necessarily asking an intelligent agent to magically remove our defects of character, it's more representative of something we want to achieve. Indeed, it could be seen as a purely symbolic gesture.

roosh · 16-04-2014 1:03am

sopretty wrote: »

My interpretation of it would be that our 'pure nature' rather than our 'true nature' is aligned with 'God' or 'Godliness'. We allow our conscious minds or egos to take over, but if we can get back to, or tap into our pure nature, then we will be better human beings. Tough task though!

"pure nature" may be a better term for it.

gaynorvader · 16-04-2014 10:28am

roosh wrote: »

I'm not sure what the point is. Essentially, the universe exists as a single entity, according to pantheist philosophy, at least. Everyone and everything is part of that single entity. I'm not sure why the relative size of any of the parts is pertinent.

We can look at it from two angles: firstly, the idea that the universe is a single entity, of which we are a part. This single entity is what is referred to as "god".

We can also look at it from the perspective of the practicalities of it, namely the practice of meditation. The practice of meditation serves to help cultivate awareness of our subconscious thought processes and habits. Through awareness we can loosen and, possibly, even break our subconscious attachment to the conditioned beliefs that we have about ourselves. The more we loosen these subconscious attachments the closer we come to our innate nature, which is said to be truly compassionate, loving, and possess innate, true happiness. This is something which can be investigated.

As we loosen this subconscious attachment our thinking and actions are driven more and more from this innate nature, rather than the subconscious, habitual thinking that we are conditioned with. This innate nature is said to be one and the same with "god", because it is the realisation of our unity with everything else that helps to break the conditioned beliefs we have about ourselves and others - where we generally see ourselves as separate and distinct from everything else.

So, we can make a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of "God" as we understand him. This decision is simply a decision to carry on working the steps with the faith - a dirty word for some, I know - that working through the steps will help to change the subconscious, habitual thinking that has driven the addictive behaviour. It's a decision to try and break that subconscious conditioning.

When we talk about "faith" here it is, or at least can be, nothing more than faith that the steps will work. It isn't blind faith in an anthropomorphic god. In a similar way that we might have faith in a builder to do a good job building our house, bcos we have seen the job he did for someone else, people might have faith in the steps bcos they see other people who have worked through them and achieved sobriety.

Again, the idea of "asking" for shortcomings to be removed could be seen in the context of the practice of "Loving Kindness", where phrases like "May such and such a person be happy..." etc. We could say "May our shortcomings be removed...".

Why bring a god into it at all? Every time you break it down you talk about an individual's 'true/good/pure nature' and meditation. Then link it to being part of the greater universe and call it God, which is like calling a cup of seawater the ocean. I'm sure that meditation is beneficial, it doesn't infer any god though.
Again, it comes back to intelligence, if your understanding of God is unintelligent, how can you ask it/Him to remove your shortcomings? How can you turn your will over to it/Him? I understand what you're saying about having faith in a system working (many people have such a faith in doctors, medicine, etc), but the 12 steps would ask you to elevate the 12 steps to God status if you were to take that approach with them.

It isn't necessarily asking an intelligent agent to magically remove our defects of character, it's more representative of something we want to achieve. Indeed, it could be seen as a purely symbolic gesture.

It is literally what step 7 says, minus the "magically" part:

12 Steps wrote:

7. Humbly asked Him[God] to remove our shortcomings.

It doesn't say ask Him to help remove our shortcomings, it says ask Him to remove them.

roosh · 16-04-2014 11:22am

gaynorvader wrote: »

Why bring a god into it at all? Every time you break it down you talk about an individual's 'true/good/pure nature' and meditation. Then link it to being part of the greater universe and call it God, which is like calling a cup of seawater the ocean. I'm sure that meditation is beneficial, it doesn't infer any god though.

It isn't a case of bringing a "god" into it, it's that if we look at some of the already existing, spiritual philosophies this is what they say that "god" is.

The ocean analogy is an interesting one, bcos it is one that I've heard quite often in spiritual philosophy, or at least a variation on it. The analogy likens us to waves in the ocean. While there might be many waves in the ocean they are all part of the ocean and not separate from it.

Our subconscious conditioning has us believe that we, the wave, are somehow separate from the ocean, and all the other waves. This can, perhaps, be seen in the analogy of a "cup" of seawater, bcos we can imagine a cup of sea water being separated from the ocean, but in reality we are not, nor can we be, separated from the ocean.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Again, it comes back to intelligence, if your understanding of God is unintelligent, how can you ask it/Him to remove your shortcomings? How can you turn your will over to it/Him?
...
It is literally what step 7 says, minus the "magically" part:
...
It doesn't say ask Him to help remove our shortcomings, it says ask Him to remove them.

As mentioned, this, somewhat, depends on what your understanding of an "intelligent god" is, or how you would imagine the universe to be intelligent. Given that we are an inseparable part of the universe and we are intelligent then there is an intelligence in the universe- in the senes I presume you are talking about - that manifests through us. A rock doesn't manifest intelligence, but if we are, and I think it is the only logical position, inseparable parts of the universe - like waves in the ocean - then there is intelligence manifest in the universe, which is a part of it. This doesn't require inanimate objects to be intelligent, however, which is where the danger of misunderstanding lies if we talk about the universe being intelligent.

Again, however, there is no actual need for any intelligence bcos asking for shortcomings to be removed can be viewed in a purely symbolic sense, or it can be viewed as asking some "deeper" part of yourself, just as people try to motivate themselves when they are trying to push themselves to succeed - have you ever said to yourself (consciously or otherwise), when doing something strenuous, "come on, you can do it", "push harder", or something along those lines?

It can also be viewed, as mentioned, in the context of the practice of "Loving Kindness".

With regard to making a decision to turn our will and our loves over to god as he is understood by the individual, this again is just a decision to carry on working the steps with the "faith" that doing the practical things in the steps will help to break the attachment to the subconscious, habitual thinking which drives our behaviour and that future behaviour will be driven from a state of greater awareness.

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-04-2014 8:24am

roosh wrote: »

The 12-steps are as much pantheistic as they are theistic.

Only because you are willing to edit them / ignore bits of them, as you see fit when you see fit. If you freely edit them then they are as much a recipie for dip as they are theistic too. The "god" in the 12 steps is blatantly theistic, replete with personal pronoun and more.

Again: I have no issue with anyone editing it to make it suit themselves. Go for it. I am just not going to concede to those who wish to lie / pretend that this is not what they are doing.

roosh wrote: »

As mentioned, we can look at it another way.

Off you go if you want to. I am looking at it my way. And my way is that if someone claims that X is effective in the treatment of alcohol then I want to see substantiation for that claim. Rather than offer any however, you are faffing about.

Can you substantiate the idea that any aspect of AA, other than it being a social outlet and support group, is in any way beneficial or useful to alcoholics as a whole? How do you measure and evaluate this efficacy outside faff and assertion?

roosh wrote: »

The point is that if social support groups are beneficial then that is one tick in the column of the 12-step approach

Except no it is not. If you find Y is beneficial and you simply tack X onto the end of Y. Then Y is not a "tick in the column of X". But this is what you are trying to pull. You are attempting to allow 12 steps to benefit by proxy by simply tacking it on to something useful.

roosh · 23-04-2014 1:18pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Only because you are willing to edit them / ignore bits of them, as you see fit when you see fit. If you freely edit them then they are as much a recipie for dip as they are theistic too. The "god" in the 12 steps is blatantly theistic, replete with personal pronoun and more.

Again: I have no issue with anyone editing it to make it suit themselves. Go for it. I am just not going to concede to those who wish to lie / pretend that this is not what they are doing.

Again, there is no need for editing; as has been explained, a pantheistic interpretation of "god" doesn't require the steps to be edited. Also, when we consider the quote, from one of the founding members, where he says that "as we understood him" is the most important expression in the 12-step vernacular, it furthers this point.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Off you go if you want to. I am looking at it my way. And my way is that if someone claims that X is effective in the treatment of alcohol then I want to see substantiation for that claim. Rather than offer any however, you are faffing about.

Can you substantiate the idea that any aspect of AA, other than it being a social outlet and support group, is in any way beneficial or useful to alcoholics as a whole? How do you measure and evaluate this efficacy outside faff and assertion?

In the absence of any, agreed upon, best practices we are left with a situation where we can't say anything is effective in treating addiction, not even social outlets or support groups. We also can't say that anything is harmful, without the relevant research. So, can you provide any best practices in the treatment of addiction?

In the absence of such research we are left with the situation where an addict, who feels they need some form of treatment, must evaluate the various treatment programs for themselves. All that we have left is anecdotal evidence. That doesn't mean to say that it is correct, but that until such evidence is uncovered and formulated, then we have no other choice, indeed, the addict has no other choice. Consequently, it also doesn't mean that it isn't effective.

In the 12-step literature, the "pre-amble" (which is read out at meetings) states, "if you want what we have...", saying that, if an addict sees something among 12-step groups that they would like for themselves i.e. people who have been abstinent and who seem to have happier lives, "...then you are ready to take certain steps". The anecdotal evidence which, in the absence of any other evidence, is all we have, would suggest that people achieve sobriety, and general improvement in their disposition, by following those steps and going to meetings, not just going to meetings.

So, again, can you provide an outline of, agreed upon, best practices in the treatment of addiction, bcos if you can't all we have to go on is anecdotal evidence.

You did mention some studies which suggested that AA was no more effective than those who didn't receive any treatment, but there seems to be some dispute over the various studies, bcos the efficacy rates seem to vary, quite wildly, between studies; with those studies showing a high efficacy rate being accused of questionable methodology.

With regard to those studies showing low efficacy rates, do you know whether they measured those who had completed the steps, or just people who, in general, attended meetings, without necessarily completing the steps?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except no it is not. If you find Y is beneficial and you simply tack X onto the end of Y. Then Y is not a "tick in the column of X". But this is what you are trying to pull. You are attempting to allow 12 steps to benefit by proxy by simply tacking it on to something useful.

The issue is that the twelve step program is X, Y and, Z. So where X and Y are shown to be beneficial, then it it is certainly a tick in the column of the twelve step program.

marienbad · 23-04-2014 1:26pm

roosh wrote: »

Again, there is no need for editing; as has been explained, a pantheistic interpretation of "god" doesn't require the steps to be edited. Also, when we consider the quote, from one of the founding members, where he says that "as we understood him" is the most important expression in the 12-step vernacular, it furthers this point.

In the absence of any, agreed upon, best practices we are left with a situation where we can't say anything is effective in treating addiction, not even social outlets or support groups. We also can't say that anything is harmful, without the relevant research. So, can you provide any best practices in the treatment of addiction?

In the absence of such research we are left with the situation where an addict, who feels they need some form of treatment, must evaluate the various treatment programs for themselves. All that we have left is anecdotal evidence. That doesn't mean to say that it is correct, but that until such evidence is uncovered and formulated, then we have no other choice, indeed, the addict has no other choice. Consequently, it also doesn't mean that it isn't effective.

In the 12-step literature, the "pre-amble" (which is read out at meetings) states, "if you want what we have...", saying that, if an addict sees something among 12-step groups that they would like for themselves i.e. people who have been abstinent and who seem to have happier lives, "...then you are ready to take certain steps". The anecdotal evidence which, in the absence of any other evidence, is all we have, would suggest that people achieve sobriety, and general improvement in their disposition, by following those steps and going to meetings, not just going to meetings.

So, again, can you provide an outline of, agreed upon, best practices in the treatment of addiction, bcos if you can't all we have to go on is anecdotal evidence.

You did mention some studies which suggested that AA was no more effective than those who didn't receive any treatment, but there seems to be some dispute over the various studies, bcos the efficacy rates seem to vary, quite wildly, between studies; with those studies showing a high efficacy rate being accused of questionable methodology.

With regard to those studies showing low efficacy rates, do you know whether they measured those who had completed the steps, or just people who, in general, attended meetings, without necessarily completing the steps?

The issue is that the twelve step program is X, Y and, Z. So where X and Y are shown to be beneficial, then it it is certainly a tick in the column of the twelve step program.

One never completes the steps , they become a way of life .

roosh · 23-04-2014 3:57pm

marienbad wrote: »

One never completes the steps , they become a way of life .

True, but for the purposes of a study it might be worth looking at people who have worked through all 12 at some point; that is, people who have moved on to step 12, even earlier steps must be repeated, as opposed to people who have yet to reach step 12, for the first time.

sopretty · 23-04-2014 4:05pm

Slightly off topic, but in general, in the AA poster's home groups, is there a concerted emphasis generally on recovery and the steps, or is it more of a muddle along, don't mention the steps, sure you've your whole life to do them feeling going on?
My nearest group would be the latter (with the exception of a couple of members), but the next nearest group (with a younger demographic), would be very much the former.
I really wish we had the American way of being assigned a sponsor on day 1!!!! The amount of times I've gotten sober for a couple of months, squawked at meetings about wanting to get started on the steps, and ended up going back on the demon drink then as a result of no progression in recovery, drives me bonkers.
At this point, I'm almost entirely disillusioned with AA.
I feel that if I had been brought through the steps the first or second times I was sober, I'd have stood some chance.
There's only so long you can white-knuckle it, no matter how many meetings and 'group support' you have!

gaynorvader · 23-04-2014 4:43pm

sopretty wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but in general, in the AA poster's home groups, is there a concerted emphasis generally on recovery and the steps, or is it more of a muddle along, don't mention the steps, sure you've your whole life to do them feeling going on?
My nearest group would be the latter (with the exception of a couple of members), but the next nearest group (with a younger demographic), would be very much the former.
I really wish we had the American way of being assigned a sponsor on day 1!!!! The amount of times I've gotten sober for a couple of months, squawked at meetings about wanting to get started on the steps, and ended up going back on the demon drink then as a result of no progression in recovery, drives me bonkers.
At this point, I'm almost entirely disillusioned with AA.
I feel that if I had been brought through the steps the first or second times I was sober, I'd have stood some chance.
There's only so long you can white-knuckle it, no matter how many meetings and 'group support' you have!

The topic had a good run.

Do you have any teetotaller friends? The hardest thing about giving up anything is having people around you partaking, it'll make you feel like you're missing out or tempt you back in.

sopretty · 23-04-2014 4:50pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

The topic had a good run.

Do you have any teetotaller friends? The hardest thing about giving up anything is having people around you partaking, it'll make you feel like you're missing out or tempt you back in.

My social life took a wee bit of a hit when I hit full-blown-alco status

, so no, I was not heading out hitting the town hitting the orange.

I was running 10k, cleaning my house, baking buns, cakes, brown bread, stews, cleaning drawers out that I had forgotten existed, twice daily meetings etc. etc. lol.

I was never in contact with drinking people while sober. I avoided them like the plague. Wasn't hard, as I avoid people when drinking also!

gaynorvader · 23-04-2014 4:54pm

sopretty wrote: »

My social life took a wee bit of a hit when I hit full-blown-alco status , so no, I was not heading out hitting the town hitting the orange.

I was running 10k, cleaning my house, baking buns, cakes, brown bread, stews, cleaning drawers out that I had forgotten existed, twice daily meetings etc. etc. lol.

I was never in contact with drinking people while sober. I avoided them like the plague. Wasn't hard, as I avoid people when drinking also!

Did you hang out with non-drinkers though? Or even just hang out with friends you knew wouldn't try to pressure you to drink? Having a partner on a run is great. Everything you described is a solitary activity bar the AA meetings, possibly another group activity would help?

sopretty · 23-04-2014 5:04pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

Did you hang out with non-drinkers though? Or even just hang out with friends you knew wouldn't try to pressure you to drink? Having a partner on a run is great. Everything you described is a solitary activity bar the AA meetings, possibly another group activity would help?

Pretty much isolated alright. Apart from AA members.

gaynorvader · 23-04-2014 5:06pm

sopretty wrote: »

Pretty much isolated alright. Apart from AA members.

If you don't mind some unsolicited advice then, go find a group activity to do. It must be pretty wearisome when your only social outlet has alcohol as its main theme. Just make sure you don't get dragged into after drinks

sopretty · 23-04-2014 5:09pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

If you don't mind some unsolicited advice then, go find a group activity to do. It must be pretty wearisome when your only social outlet has alcohol as its main theme. Just make sure you don't get dragged into after drinks

I get excited when people are around lol. My natural instinct (call it a trigger) is to want to go for drinks! My younger alcoholic years were spent in the pub. The latter ones in isolation at home.

marienbad · 23-04-2014 5:53pm

sopretty wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but in general, in the AA poster's home groups, is there a concerted emphasis generally on recovery and the steps, or is it more of a muddle along, don't mention the steps, sure you've your whole life to do them feeling going on?
My nearest group would be the latter (with the exception of a couple of members), but the next nearest group (with a younger demographic), would be very much the former.
I really wish we had the American way of being assigned a sponsor on day 1!!!! The amount of times I've gotten sober for a couple of months, squawked at meetings about wanting to get started on the steps, and ended up going back on the demon drink then as a result of no progression in recovery, drives me bonkers.
At this point, I'm almost entirely disillusioned with AA.
I feel that if I had been brought through the steps the first or second times I was sober, I'd have stood some chance.
There's only so long you can white-knuckle it, no matter how many meetings and 'group support' you have!

Virtually all groups I have attended have a fairly set routine , usually along the lines of a step meeting once a month , an open meeting at regular intervals also and depending on local requirements. And a huge emphasis on recovery .

On the sponsorship thing it is usually done by the new or newish member asking someone . Usually after they have listened for sometime and identified a person they identify with and probably at this stage have spoken to quite a bit .

The thing about the steps is you must commit to them yourself and do them yourself , sure listen at step meetings ,read the literature, chat discuss seek advice but ultimately only you can do the steps . If you have gone to even one meeting you already well into step 1.

I know it is very hard when you are at your most vulnerable but you also must find the strength to ask for help at meetings and the after meetings chats. People don't want to seem pushy so take a chance. If a person is wrong for you they will link you up with someone more suited - a women or a younger person , or someone with cross addiction etc.

When I first went I was told AA is like concentric circles and there was I on the outermost ring just hanging on and the objective is to get closer and closer to the centre , just like a little solar system . Or in basic terms - latch onto and stick with the winners, i.e. those with long term sobriety .

And to do whatever it takes to archive that.

nozzferrahhtoo · 24-04-2014 7:49am

roosh wrote: »

Again, there is no need for editing

Then stop. Because that is what you are doing. Your rants here are akin to the scene in Monty Python where one person hears "Blessed are the cheesemakers" and decides that this applies to everyone working in Dairy. A dilution of the meaning that simply was not present in the original utterance.

You are essentially engaged in the same comedy. You are taking a clear description of an intentional interventionalist personal theistic god and attempting to linguistically dilute away the parts that do not gel with your desired meaning, ignoring those parts, and acting like this makes it compatible with whatever you want it to be.

roosh wrote: »

In the absence of any, agreed upon, best practices we are left with a situation where we can't say anything is effective in treating addiction

Then establish some if you need to. My point once again is that anyone commenting on the efficacy of AA specifically has the full onus of proof at their feet. They can establish exactly what measures they are using to assert this, and what substantiation they have to support the assertions.

You appear to want me to do that work for you. Not happening. If you, or anyone else, on this thread wants to claim that AA is an effective treatment, or aid to treatment, for alcoholics then I am all ears to hear the basis for such a claim, including the standards of measurement used in that evaluation.

roosh wrote: »

You did mention some studies which suggested that AA was no more effective than those who didn't receive any treatment

Not me. AA themselves. Their own internal leaked figures claim this.

roosh · 29-04-2014 5:12am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then stop. Because that is what you are doing. Your rants here are akin to the scene in Monty Python where one person hears "Blessed are the cheesemakers" and decides that this applies to everyone working in Dairy. A dilution of the meaning that simply was not present in the original utterance.

You are essentially engaged in the same comedy. You are taking a clear description of an intentional interventionalist personal theistic god and attempting to linguistically dilute away the parts that do not gel with your desired meaning, ignoring those parts, and acting like this makes it compatible with whatever you want it to be.

Hahahaha classic Life of Brian.

As has been repeatedly mentioned, there is no need for such dilution, the reason being that a pantheistic interpretation offers a different way of looking at "god" that addresses all of the issues you perceive to exist.

I dare say the reason you perceive these issues to exist is bcos of your familiarity with the christian conception of "god" and, from this perspective, it would certainly seem that it is only such a conception that could possibly be compatible with the 12-steps. Again, however, a pantheistic interpretation offers a different way of looking at "god" that doesn't require any changes in the 12-steps. Some would argue, myself included, that a pantheistic interpretation is what the concept of "god" originally was, before becoming "corrupted" over the millennia.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then establish some if you need to. My point once again is that anyone commenting on the efficacy of AA specifically has the full onus of proof at their feet. They can establish exactly what measures they are using to assert this, and what substantiation they have to support the assertions.

You appear to want me to do that work for you. Not happening. If you, or anyone else, on this thread wants to claim that AA is an effective treatment, or aid to treatment, for alcoholics then I am all ears to hear the basis for such a claim, including the standards of measurement used in that evaluation.

No one wants you to do any work for them. I've simply repeated the request for the current, agreed upon, best practices in addiction treatment, bcos I'm not familiar with them myself and I'm not even sure if such exist. If no such best practices exist, then it renders this line of discussion almost meaningless, for any approach to addiction treatment.

Of course, the absence of any such data doesn't render the claim to the efficacy of the 12-steps incorrect, it simply means that there is no data, as of yet - due to the limited research into the field - to support the claims. Now, this isn't of much use to the addict who has acknowledged that they have a problem and that feels they need some form of treatment. In such an instance, a discussion as to how the 12-steps actually work and the changes they can potentially bring about, while only being anecdotal in nature, might be quite helpful. It might also be helpful for anyone who has certain pre- and misconceptions about the 12-steps. But this doesn't seem to be a line of discussion you are prepared to follow.

In short, it seems as though no discussion can be had about treatment programs, given the lack of research into the area.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not me. AA themselves. Their own internal leaked figures claim this.

I think the reliability of research conducted by AA has already been seriously questioned, so I'm not sure how reliable those figures are. However, with regard to the figure of 5%, I think that was with regard to the retention rate in AA i.e. the number of people who attend meetings and stay.

Such a figure can be misleading when evaluating the efficacy of the 12-steps, however, bcos, in order to determine the efficacy of the 12-steps we should be evaluating those people who have reached step 12, at least, for the first time, not just those people who have attended a few meetings and decided that it wasn't for them.

nozzferrahhtoo · 29-04-2014 9:22am

roosh wrote: »

As has been repeatedly mentioned, there is no need for such dilution

At as pointed out, repetition does not make something true. The facts are there to be read (or in your case ignored) that the text of the 12 steps very clearly describe an intentional, intelligent, personal interventionalist theistic god.

If you or any other person wants to dismiss those parts in order to make use of AA compatible with their world view then as I keep saying I have no issue with that. I am cool with it.

All I am doing is acknowledging that this has been done. I am ok with the ignoring. I am not ok with ignoring the ignoring.

roosh wrote: »

If no such best practices exist, then it renders this line of discussion almost meaningless, for any approach to addiction treatment.

roosh wrote: »

I think the reliability of research conducted by AA has already been seriously questioned

Then as I said you need to take this up not with me, but anyone on the thread past or future who makes claims as to the efficacy of AA. You will need to ask them what standards, and forms of measure, they are using to evaluate such an assertion... before then asking them for the substantiation they inserted into that framework to come to their conclusions.

Anyone on the thread, who may still be reading along, care to engage in this?

roosh · 29-04-2014 10:34am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

At as pointed out, repetition does not make something true. The facts are there to be read (or in your case ignored) that the text of the 12 steps very clearly describe an intentional, intelligent, personal interventionalist theistic god.

If you or any other person wants to dismiss those parts in order to make use of AA compatible with their world view then as I keep saying I have no issue with that. I am cool with it.

All I am doing is acknowledging that this has been done. I am ok with the ignoring. I am not ok with ignoring the ignoring.

The only one guilty of repetition and ignoring what has been said is yourself. I have outlined in previous posts how a pantheistic interpretation requires no dilution or ignoring of any parts of the 12-steps, yet you have chosen to simply repeat the assertion that it does, without directly addressing any of the points raised.

You have also failed to consider some other key aspects of 12-step literature as well as the actual dynamics of 12-step groups, when arguing that the 12-step approach is religious; instead, you have stuck, dogmatically, to a narrow reading of the text of the 12-steps bcos of your own particular understanding of what the concept of "god" means. It has, repeatedly, been pointed out that such a narrow focus isn't sufficient to answer the question of religiosity, bcos there is more literature which helps to clarify the text of the 12-steps, that is, to give a better understanding of what is meant by it.

So even if, in theory, the 12-steps were religious,which they don't necessarily have to be, in practice 12-step groups are not necessarily religious. Again, they can be, but there are a vast array of beliefs about "god" which are not questioned, because "as we understood him" is "the most important phrase in [the 12-step] vernacular".

So, at worst, the 12-step approach is not, in practice, necessarily religious. But of, course, as has been pointed out, the 12-steps themselves don't necessarily have to be religious either, even in theory.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then as I said you need to take this up not with me, but anyone on the thread past or future who makes claims as to the efficacy of AA. You will need to ask them what standards, and forms of measure, they are using to evaluate such an assertion... before then asking them for the substantiation they inserted into that framework to come to their conclusions.

Anyone on the thread, who may still be reading along, care to engage in this?

I will engage with anyone who makes claims with regard to figures concerning efficacy. I would engage with them to see what the figures suggest and to see if they know what the studies have investigated.

If someone makes the claim that the 12-step approach to addiction can be successful, then I would support their claim, even if it was only anecdotally. Just as I would support a similar claim about CBT, anecdotally, as they are the only two approaches with which I am, in any way, familiar with - the 12-step approach much more so.

If someone makes a claim, or champions it, with regard to the success of the 12-step approach being equal to no help at all, then I will also engage with them to see what the studies have investigated.

Unfortunately for the addict, waiting for the research to be conducted into the efficacy of different treatment programs might not be a satisfactory option. In which case I will gladly discuss the anecdotal evidence and outline why I believe the practical steps in the 12-steps bring about a change in the thinking of the addict, as they did in me.

A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

Comments