A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

mathepac

Verygames11 wrote: »

Hey all, I'm getting my life back on track and I'm trying to kick my alcohol addiction.
I was thinking of going to an alcoholics anonymous meeting but I'm a bit put off by "The Twelve Steps" that help people give it up ...

Why jump ahead, why anticipate problems?

Step 1. “We admitted we were powerless over alcohol— that our lives had become unmanageable.” This step sounds kinda like the first sentence in your post, the main difference being the collective and inclusive "we". The reason the step is worded this way is to break down the notion of isolation and loneliness addicts / alcoholics sometimes feel. "I'm different / odd / I don't fit in / I'm less than other people". Go to a few meetings, (as pointed out above you don't have to speak) listen to the stories and see if you really are different to people in the rooms. Move around to different groups and find one you feel comfortable in. You'll be amazed at the number of meetings and members there are.

nozzferrahhtoo

mathepac wrote: »

To give the lie once and for all about the religiosity of any 12-step programme

Please read the 12 steps yourself. 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.

It is about as religious as religious can get.

mathepac wrote: »

One poster suggests that AA's research into success rates is suspect because their data-set doesn't include former AA members. The second "A" in their title stands for "Anonymous".

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.

The fact that you haven't grasped this basic fact about the organisation speaks volumes about the value of your post.

taytothief wrote: »

When you start giving life advice to people on something like addiction, when most of you haven't a fcukin clue what A.A. is like, you're no different then a Christian suggesting for or against something based on purely Catholic belief or dogma.

And what about people who have never had cancer who do research and implement best practice guidelines on how to best and most effectively treat it?

You appear to think that unless you suffer from a condition yourself that you are precluded from commentary on treating that condition. Tosh. We have disciplines like Epidemiology for a reason. There are effective and long honed methodologies for evaluating the effectiveness of a treatment plan or plans and improving those plans iteratively based on those results.

And the simple fact of the matter is that when such methodologies are implemented with regards to AA, the success rates are simply embarrassingly low.

taytothief wrote: »

Some atheists in this thread appear to be so caught up in their hatred of religion that they're putting the welfare of individuals in jeopardy.

You are stuffing a straw man with ad hominem here and coming to a statement that is the EXACT antithesis or reality. It has nothing to do with a hatred of religion. At. all.

It has EVERYTHING to do with a knowledge of epidemiology and the reasons why we engage in such methodologies. It has everything to do with the welfare of people in jeopardy. It has everything to do with the onus, that is incumbent upon us all, to refer vulnerable people in need to the treatments that have been shown to be the safest and most effective.

If someone has cancer do you send them for top of the range cancer treatments that have been shown to be the most effective? Or do you tell them to sit in a pool of scented water and rub rose petals on their nipples?

You send them for the best treatment and you warn them off treatments that have been shown to be ineffective and/or positively damaging.

THAT is what drives the anti-AA comments. Not some imagined anti religion agenda you want to assign in your head to the speaker in order to dismiss their objections with the mere wave of a hand.

nozzferrahhtoo

sopretty wrote: »

I feel the need to post my opinion, as I feel that AA can potentially save some lives.

Hard to say. With a success rate of 5%... which is the same success rate as no intervention at all.... the above statement from you is iffy at best.

The fact is that ANY methodology "could potentially save some lives". So what you are saying is... pedantically at least..... 100% accurate. But this has nothing to do with AA.

To steal an example once again from another poster I read some time ago..... If I were to get 1000 severe and in danger of death alcoholics and simply tell them "Every time you get the urge to drink state at a pink dot on an orange page and hum the american national anthem while doing the Mumba"..... I am going to save some lives. At least 5% if not more of that 1000 people are going to find this solution actually worked for them. So my solution "could potentially save lives".

Does that change the fact it is complete nonsense that I simply pulled out of the wrong orifice of my body? No. Nor does it change the fact that it is highly irresponsible of me to implement.... en masse.... a treatment program that is demonstrably nonsense.... has no supporting figures or best practice guidelines.... and is likely in the long run to cause a lot more harm than the good of a handful of "success" testimonies.

Geomy

Well it looks like the addiction has a 95% success rate, and any presently known solution has a 5% rate...

sopretty

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
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.

nozzferrahhtoo

sopretty wrote: »

Nozzferratthoo - the thing about AA is, that every single member has walked in those doors, beaten, broken and hopeless.

And if the figures are to be believed 95% of them walked out the same way.

What worries me about the "first impressions" people get, like the ones you describe in your first paragraph, is "How many people got scared off the group by this and not only never returned.... but then lost all confidence in groups of that sort entirely????".

We will never know of course because AA does not record drop out numbers very well.... or at all..... but we have to acknowledge the risk that if people are being put off by this they might never go back. Not just to AA but ANY group. And this is not good.

The advice we get time and time again from AA supporters on forums is "Shop around". If you do not like one group try the next one, and the next. This is great advice! The problem is are the people who really need that advice actually getting it? Or are my fears in the paragraph above common? Again we do not know, but anecdote while not evidence, is persuasive enough to have me concerned.

But what I said in an earlier post can not be stressed enough. Many charlatan and bogus programmes in MANY areas (alternative medicine, new fangled diet regimes, self help groups and much much more) are never 100% nonsense. They are always built around a core that displays some utility and sense. The ones that are not, simply do not catch on. The business model of the self proclaimed nutrition experts of the world is the single best example of this, but by no means the only one.

And at it's very core AA is simply a mutual self help social support group. And this is a good thing. And it IS going to help some people. No doubt about it. I would be a fool to suggest, or even imply, otherwise.

But like many of the dietry plans by these charlatan nutrition experts, around that sensible core they build a construct of nonsense, unsubstantiated woo, and at times positively harmful tenets.

So when people come into threads like this saying things like "But AA does help some people!!!!" they are A) missing the point that people not happy with AA are actually making and stating the obvious and espousing things that people speaking against AA already accept and know.

So in essence when you go on about Alcoholics speaking to Alcoholics... and the benefits of this.... you are effectively "preaching to the choir" as the cliche goes. I absolutely know, acknowledge and accept that fact 100%.

sopretty wrote: »

Millions of raging alcos managing to keep manners on themselves

I would simply be curious as to the source of your figures here. Millions? really? With a 5% success rate? That means 95 times "millions" are attending AA? Where do they even have the space to house this number of people exactly?

nozzferrahhtoo

Geomy wrote: »

Well it looks like the addiction has a 95% success rate, and any presently known solution has a 5% rate...

Not really. Some studies have shown that self help groups.... of which AA is only one..... when done in conjunction with professional therapy.... can be a good bit more effective than 5%.

There are also some promising sounding drugs on the market but lots more work has to be done there. As you will see in the Penn and Teller video above the AA offices spoke out strongly against use of such drugs. Similar to how they once spoke out strongly against using professional therapy in conjunction with their own. One thing we can say pretty confidently about AA is that they historically have not been great at playing with others.

gaynorvader

If you don't think AA is going to be your thing, chances are it won't be. If you go in with a negative view of it it is unlikely to help you. Luckily there are many other options. I'd highly recommend nozzferrahhtoo's advice with regards to getting counselling in addition to whatever else you try. I fundamentally disagree with the AA system in that it asserts that "you are powerless". You're not powerless, just by seeking help you have shown power over alcohol.

sopretty

AA's literature specifically states 'we do not hold a monopoly on recovery'. It also has something in it about the NEED for other professional/medical help in some cases (can't quote it exactly).

As regards the amount of people put off by the God thing, I'd say that it is surprisingly low. For the simple fact that recovered or recovering alcoholics will give any newcomer a very balanced introduction to AA.

In terms of the millions of alcoholics, I'm talking about the amount who have recovered since AA was founded. You really should read the AA big book. It's an interesting read!

All that said however, when AA started out, it had a very high percentage of recovery, as those who joined, went fairly quickly through the 12 steps. Nowadays, some groups can take the focus off the steps (as they had put people off AA). Recovery with just attending meetings and not doing the steps does seem quite low these days. This is a debate which would divide most AA members though.

Really, the steps of AA are to give you a way to handle life sober. They aim to have the same effect on you as a drink would have had (or a similarly soothing effect).

Alcoholism is an horrific illness. That little voice in your head that wants you to drink will come up with a million different excuses. One of them could be - "I'm not going to AA - they're a bunch of religious zealots - another pint there please barman?". Another one of them could be - "sure only 5% recover from alcoholism - I guess I'm in the other 95% - woohoo - party on!!".

All rehabs that I am aware of in Ireland will recommend attendance at AA in terms of their aftercare and long term recovery. My own psychiatrist (addiction specialist) told me that in his experience, people who attend AA 'generally' do better than those who don't.

It can be the luck of the draw sometimes with regards how much you would enjoy a particular meeting.

Nozzferrathoo - have you ever attended an open meeting of AA? I'm assuming you are not alcoholic and just have a particular interest? Please correct me if I'm wrong - I shouldn't be assuming!

nozzferrahhtoo

sopretty wrote: »

AA's literature specifically states 'we do not hold a monopoly on recovery'.

And yet the same literature speaks against using other means of recovery in parallel such as professional psychotherapy. So you will have to forgive me if I so not put much stock in them claiming the above, if it is true they claim it.

sopretty wrote: »

It also has something in it about the NEED for other professional/medical help in some cases (can't quote it exactly).

Again I am not sure I believe this. There is an article in Scientific American which clearly states "After reviewing the literature, we found that AA may help some people overcome alcoholism, especially if they also get some professional assistance, but the evidence is far from overwhelming, in part because of the nature of the program."

It notes that ""56 percent were abstinent versus 39 percent of those who did not see a therapist—an indication that seeing a professional is also beneficial.""

But it also notes that "They are to accomplish these difficult goals without professional help. No therapists, psychologists or physicians can attend AA meetings unless they, too, have drinking problems."

So I am being told two polar opposite things by two polar opposite sources. The article strongly suggests AA is against such professional help in conjuction with the program. Also reading the 4th Edition of the "Big Book" on line, it is packed full of "testimony" and those testimonies are simply riddled with stories of how the medical profession failed them, did not understand or relate to them. Anyone reading this book will come away with a general mood of being anti main stream solutions.

sopretty wrote: »

As regards the amount of people put off by the God thing, I'd say that it is surprisingly low.

I doubt it but I have no figures to call it on either way. Anecdote is not evidence, but anecdotally I have read so many forum posts of people who went to AA.... were put off by the god and bible bashing.... and never went back that I simply have become awash with a feeling of dread in this regard. I would love to get hard figures on the matter but as another user noted.... as many have before..... it is notoriously difficult to do so.

sopretty wrote: »

In terms of the millions of alcoholics, I'm talking about the amount who have recovered since AA was founded.

Again what is the source of these figures? With a 5% success rate... to have "millions" of recoveries since the first edition of the book you would have to have a truely massive number of people who tried it. So what are the figures. "Millions" sounds vague hyperbole to me.

sopretty wrote: »

You really should read the AA big book. It's an interesting read!

You incorrectly assume I havent.

sopretty wrote: »

All rehabs that I am aware of in Ireland will recommend attendance at AA in terms of their aftercare and long term recovery.

Sure. And the US courts mandate it sometimes too for criminals who have alcohol issues. But the tide is slowly turning on that one too. Name dropping who recommends it does not help. I would like to hear their justification on WHY they recommend it. Is it personal recommendation by nurses on the ground? Or it it common best implemented practice to recommend it? If so on what basis? What is in their literature on the subject?

sopretty wrote: »

My own psychiatrist (addiction specialist) told me that in his experience, people who attend AA 'generally' do better than those who don't.

The whole reason we have the field of Epidemiology is so that doctors and professionals do not make medical recommendations off the back of "In my experience".

sopretty wrote: »

Nozzferrathoo - have you ever attended an open meeting of AA? I'm assuming you are not alcoholic and just have a particular interest? Please correct me if I'm wrong - I shouldn't be assuming!

I am going to refuse to answer this for one single but strong reason. I believe what people are saying should be evaluated on the merits of what they are saying.... not on the merits of who is perceived to be saying it. I wish people to read what I write and evaluate it on its own merits.... and not be clouded by who they think I am while writing it.

I have a strong interest however in Epidemiology and other such methodologies and practices. That is to say: The methodologies by which we evaluate cures or treatments for ailments..... any kind of ailments.... for efficacy and side effects. And it is that interest I bring to bear on the subject of AA. Not any personal investment, experience, or perceived anti religion bias.

sopretty

"THIS fourth edition of “Alcoholics Anonymous” came off press in November 2001, at the start of a new millennium. Since the third edition was published in 1976, worldwide membership of A.A. has just about doubled, to an estimated two million or more, with nearly 100,800 groups meeting in approximately 150 countries around the world."

That is taken directly from the book you claim to have read. From the 'Foreword to the 4th Edition"

I will root through the book to find the exact quotes I referred to in response to your other queries.

gaynorvader

sopretty wrote: »

"THIS fourth edition of “Alcoholics Anonymous” came off press in November 2001, at the start of a new millennium. Since the third edition was published in 1976, worldwide membership of A.A. has just about doubled, to an estimated two million or more, with nearly 100,800 groups meeting in approximately 150 countries around the world."

That is taken directly from the book you claim to have read. From the 'Foreword to the 4th Edition"

I will root through the book to find the exact quotes I referred to in response to your other queries.

Meaning it was helping around 100,000 in 2001. (5% of 2M is 100,000)

sopretty

http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_bigbook_chapt2.pdf

If you can read pages 26 to 28, it covers the reasoning behind the 'spiritual' side of AA and explains it better than I have done!
I won't copy the text in here as I don't want to shove AA down anyone's throats!

sopretty

gaynorvader wrote: »

Meaning it was helping around 100,000 in 2001. (5% of 2M is 100,000)

Perhaps. 100k a year is a fair few over the last 80 odd years! Anyway, look, if you feel AA doesn't help people, fair enough. I'm not going to argue with you!

gaynorvader

sopretty wrote: »

Perhaps. 100k a year is a fair few over the last 80 odd years! Anyway, look, if you feel AA doesn't help people, fair enough. I'm not going to argue with you!

It's not 100k a year for 80 odd though, the book says that it had doubled in 25 years. I'm just pointing out that saying that millions are helped is hyperbole. I'm sure it does help people, but it's not the best solution for everyone.

nozzferrahhtoo

sopretty wrote: »

"THIS fourth edition of “Alcoholics Anonymous” came off press in November 2001, at the start of a new millennium. Since the third edition was published in 1976, worldwide membership of A.A. has just about doubled, to an estimated two million or more, with nearly 100,800 groups meeting in approximately 150 countries around the world."

5% of 2 million is not "millions". Millions is the plural of million. That means AT LEAST 2 million. That means you would need 40 million members in order to claim 5% recovery as "millions".

Further membership is not the same as being a recovered alcoholic. Hell some people SHOW UP to these meetings drunk at times. Many more are only there by court mandate and have no interest in getting "cured". They attend merely to fulfill the law and avoid confrontations with their parole officers. So citing membership figures, however accurate or not, is actually not addressing anything about how many people AA actually helps.

Further again.... how are the figures above compiled? How is attendance and membership measured exactly? They throw out the figure 2 million. What is it based on?

Further again again.... because there is no regulatory body..... as pointed out on this thread already..... some people are setting up meetings and running them in their own fashion. They are "AA" in nothing but name only. They stick "AA" on the door but nothing inside distinguishes it as "AA" in any way. Are these clubs and attendees included in this pulled out of thin air figure?

sopretty

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's not 100k a year for 80 odd though, the book says that it had doubled in 25 years. I'm just pointing out that saying that millions are helped is hyperbole. I'm sure it does help people, but it's not the best solution for everyone.

Fair enough - I don't even know what hyperbole means lol.
I'm more concerned with answering the OP's query about whether AA is religious or not.
To be quite honest, I have used the poor statistics as an 'excuse' to not attend AA. Or to continue drinking, more accurately!
I would have given Dr. Phil a good run for his money in arguing the non merits of rehab facilities, recovery rates in AA etc! Where there is a will to drink, there is a way to excuse it!

Dr Phil: I am going to organise rehab for you.
Moi: The success rates of those places are very low.
Dr Phil: Do you want help?
Moi: No!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is NO HELP. Leave me alone to get drunk and die off eventually.....

I would never say that AA is the ONLY way to get sober.

The only way that I personally have gotten sober is through attending AA. I have attended CADS counselling for 3 years, attended a rehab (unfortunately a religious one! - only one I could afford!), been admitted to detox in a general hospital and also admitted to a psychiatric hospital while detoxing. None of these attempts have succeeded in getting me sober! The only thing that worked for me, and just me personally, were AA meetings.

nozzferrahhtoo

sopretty wrote: »

To be quite honest, I have used the poor statistics as an 'excuse' to not attend AA. Or to continue drinking, more accurately!

The latter is unfortunate. The former not. I would heartily agree with the former. However I would not use it as an excuse to continue drinking.... but to look at other similar groups with better figures and attend them instead.

If someone told me to rub rose petals on my nipples to cure cancer and told me this has shown a success rate of 5%.... I would not use this figure as an excuse to keep suffering from cancer. I would instead research OTHER cures on offer to me.

So my advice... were it to be asked for that is..... would be to look at other groups and see their success rates.

sopretty wrote: »

The only thing that worked for me, and just me personally, were AA meetings.

Then you are one of the 5%. Well done. You beat the drink and your personal choice of support was 5%. But that says nothing really. As I said if I came up with a ridiculous programme like staring at a dot on a page, while sitting in pink water, humming a mumba tune.... there will be some number of people who would join threads about me program saying "The only thing that worked for me, and just me personally, was Nozzferrahhtoos Page Dot Technique".

Statistically it is just an accepted fact that no matter how nonsense or even harmful a programe is.... you will find people testifying to its efficacy.

kylith

sopretty wrote: »

The three pertinent ideas were:
A - that we were alcoholic and could not manage our own lives
B - that probably no human power could have relieved our alcoholism
C - that 'God' could and would if he were SOUGHT (note for a start, that this one doesn't stipulate that 'God' must be 'believed in!')

A) Convincing people that they are powerless to take control of their lives can't be helping them.

Every person who has ever overcome an addiction has done it through their own human power, and convincing them that they haven't and can't can't be helping them either.

C) How the feck can you seek something that doesn't exist? How do you look for something without believing it exists? And on top of that it's encouraging people to abdicate responsibility "You can't cure yourself, but God can, but you have to give yourself over to him.

Much better, imo, to empower people to realise that they do have control over their actions, that they themselves can overcome this with help and support, not supernatural codology.

sopretty

kylith wrote: »

A) Convincing people that they are powerless to take control of their lives can't be helping them.

Every person who has ever overcome an addiction has done it through their own human power, and convincing them that they haven't and can't can't be helping them either.

C) How the feck can you seek something that doesn't exist? How do you look for something without believing it exists? And on top of that it's encouraging people to abdicate responsibility "You can't cure yourself, but God can, but you have to give yourself over to him.

Much better, imo, to empower people to realise that they do have control over their actions, that they themselves can overcome this with help and support, not supernatural codology.

While everything you are saying is completely logical, my brain when it comes to drink is the furthest thing from logical that you could come across!
The problem with me, as an alcoholic, and I'm only speaking for me!!!! is that I personally am extremely sensitive and extremely anxious in general. I tend to blame myself for everything that goes wrong. This becomes superbly evident to me when I am sober!
I'll just give you an example of how the 'higher power' concept works for me.

I ring an old friend, they don't answer the phone. I spend the next few hours (or days!) wondering what had I done to them. I don't think to myself, 'they're busy'. I don't think to myself 'they forgot to ring me back'. I think 'Oh ****e, I've done something to annoy them - crap - what did I do? - how am I going to stop my life going wrong - should I ring them again? Should I wait? Should I text them? Should I ring/text a mutual friend? No no no - you're over-reacting - you're worse than a stalker!!! For God's sake calm the F down - Oh ****e - what did I do? Have they told anyone? - Fcuk this - I can't handle this - will someone get me a drink??????'.

Now, when I can properly 'hand over' to 'God', I take the responsibility off myself so to speak. So, in the exact same scenario as above, instead of the usual ramblings of my brain, I tell myself, 'Ok - whatever has happened, it is God's will. You are very likely to be over-reacting. It is highly likely that they were busy and forgot to ring you back. Whether you did or not, it is not the end of the world. Even if you did upset them, it's done now and you need to relax'.

Do you see how the higher power concept (power outside of yourself) comes in handy to the old alcoholic brain?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.