A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

gaynorvader

mathepac wrote: »

{...}
Speaking for myself I've said repeatedly AA is not religious because AA says so in its documentation.
Sounds like you might be describing trolling behaviour. If it's true the mods will certainly take action.

Just because an organisation claims not to be religious, doesn't make it so. It follows every definition of being religious. The mods have already taken action.

roosh wrote: »

Apologies for jumping in, I just read this post and it sounded like a similar point I replied to with nozz - hopefully this is relevant.


It might be helpful to say that avoiding something doesn't mean that you have power over it, indeed, the reason for avoiding it in the first place is because of that lack of power.

The issue is when alcohol is taken, some people just can't seem to control their drinking. Where some people can go out for a few pints, the alcoholic might find that they go out with that intention but end up drinking til all hours of the morning, even when they have work the next day, or something important to do.

Right, I think it's fair to say that once an alcoholic has a drink, they are powerless over alcohol? So the power they exert over alcohol is choosing not to drink it, which is a battle in and of itself. Am I nearer the mark with my thinking here?

mathepac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... If I set up a cancer cure centre tomorrow, self funded, and claimed to be curing cancer by rubbing rose petals on peoples nipples, you can be damn sure that I would be attacked for this by law, media, and public alike. ...

AA doesn't offer "cures" for alcoholism or cancer. Strangely enough it took a long time to shut down the Clare doctor who offered hocus-pocus cancer cures. The AA group that started before his bogus cancer cure centre, is still in operation down the street, long after he's gone.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... Has it? ...

Yes

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... And that is even before we go back in time to research how many of the claims about the two "founders" are actually true, how much of the 12 steps actually came from the "Oxford Group", and what their membership of it entailed.

And then we have the instance of an AA founder member being supplied with cocaine as a "cure" for alcoholism. The eminent drug-dealer? Feel free to research this yourself.

We can all indulge ourselves in "what aboutery", but it gets us nowhere

marienbad

This is one those times where we are just not going to reach a consensus and it is interesting that the lines are, from what I can gather, falling into two distinct groups.

- Those that oppose AA for purely rational reasons

- Those that support AA for what seem like subjective reasons based on direct experience .

However I might like to be in the first group I am without question in the second. And why ? Perhaps it is a variation of 'there are no atheists in foxholes'- When nothing else offered a way out,recovery,hope, call it what you will - AA did and still does .And criminally there are still very few other options available to the alcoholic/addict.

And until that is redressed AA/NA/GA all will continue. Can anyone suggest an alternative.

And if anyone suggests that pursuing a 'false' cure is worse that no cure just dos'nt understand the nature and power of addiction.

We will be here all day arguing over is it religious, is it prescriptive ,is it centralised etc. And that is impossible to refute as in a any large entity there will be someone that said or published something contrary.

It works for significant numbers of people and until science ,instead of saying it is working for the wrong reasons, offers alternatives based on right reasoning ,it will continue to prosper.

So does science have an alternative ?

rughdh

marienbad wrote: »

This is one those times where we are just not going to reach a consensus and it is interesting that the lines are, from what I can gather, falling into two distinct groups.

- Those that oppose AA for purely rational reasons

- Those that support AA for what seem like subjective reasons based on direct experience .

However I might like to be in the first group I am without question in the second. And why ? Perhaps it is a variation of 'there are no atheists in foxholes'- When nothing else offered a way out,recovery,hope, call it what you will - AA did and still does .And criminally there are still very few other options available to the alcoholic/addict.

And until that is redressed AA/NA/GA all will continue. Can anyone suggest an alternative.

And if anyone suggests that pursuing a 'false' cure is worse that no cure just dos'nt understand the nature and power of addiction.

We will be here all day arguing over is it religious, is it prescriptive ,is it centralised etc. And that is impossible to refute as in a any large entity there will be someone that said or published something contrary.

It works for significant numbers of people and until science ,instead of saying it is working for the wrong reasons, offers alternatives based on right reasoning ,it will continue to prosper.

So does science have an alternative ?

It's not a scientific problem. It's social, political. If you take responsibility for your emotional distress and behaviours, you can address the problem of using alcohol and other drugs as a crutch. If you see it as a disease or a behavioural disorder that you are powerless to do anything about, recovery is nigh on impossible. If we take the focus away from alcohol and address the underlying emotional distress in a consensual, safe, supportive, mutually respectful environment, then and only then can we begin to tackle the problem.

sopretty

rughdh wrote: »

It's not a scientific problem. It's social, political. If you take responsibility for your emotional distress and behaviours, you can address the problem of using alcohol and other drugs as a crutch. If you see it as a disease or a behavioural disorder that you are powerless to do anything about, recovery is nigh on impossible. If we take the focus away from alcohol and address the underlying emotional distress in a consensual, safe, supportive, mutually respectful environment, then and only then can we begin to tackle the problem.

It is very much a scientific problem to the sufferer.

marienbad

rughdh wrote: »

It's not a scientific problem. It's social, political. If you take responsibility for your emotional distress and behaviours, you can address the problem of using alcohol and other drugs as a crutch. If you see it as a disease or a behavioural disorder that you are powerless to do anything about, recovery is nigh on impossible. If we take the focus away from alcohol and address the underlying emotional distress in a consensual, safe, supportive, mutually respectful environment, then and only then can we begin to tackle the problem.

Perfect definition of AA- Alcohol is the symptom, underlying behaviours are the problem.

nozzferrahhtoo

marienbad wrote: »

So does science have an alternative ?

I do not know all the alternatives. I know something but not a lot about this relatively recent method of combining a drug with a reduction but not cessation of alcohol that is surprisingly showing much better results than application of that drug with a complete cessation.

What I do know more about is that science does offer is a way of evaluating alternatives. What questions need to be asked, how to ask them, and how to evaluate the results of that. Methods that are being applied to the drug+reduction method I mention above.

And if any group purporting to offer a treatment program are actively resistant from asking, let alone answering, those kinds of questions then it is this which actively raises my ire and suspicions. If you truly believed your program worked you would open it happily to evaluation.... so the resistance to do so speaks volumes.

nozzferrahhtoo

mathepac wrote: »

AA doesn't offer "cures" for alcoholism or cancer.

It is a treatment program, often one where patients are referred to it by medical professionals or even the courts in our world. It is purporting to help people cope or recover from alcoholism. You can be pedantic over the words we use here, be it "cure" or whatever.... but if they are at any level claiming to be able to help people recover from this condition then that is enough for my words to apply.

mathepac wrote: »

Yes

Not on this thread, and not by you, it has not. No.

mathepac wrote: »

We can all indulge ourselves in "what aboutery", but it gets us nowhere

Then I can only suggest you stop. I certainly have not being engaging in it. As I said you appear to think assertion is conclusion here and that simply saying it is not a religious organisation magically makes it so. The texts of the 12 steps however are riddled with theistic language. If you want to ignore it and pretend otherwise, that clearly is your right, but let us not engage in it while forgetting that pretending is all it is.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Right, I think it's fair to say that once an alcoholic has a drink, they are powerless over alcohol? So the power they exert over alcohol is choosing not to drink it, which is a battle in and of itself. Am I nearer the mark with my thinking here?

I am sure that is true of lots of them, but not all. I think I get the impression that AA subscribe to this "One drink, one drunk" all-or-nothing mentality that complete abstinence is the only solution, ever.

Whether my impression is true or not, the claim certainly is not. There are those who do learn moderation. Abstinence might be the only solution for some, but I would be wary of anyone who even suggests it is the solution for all.

nozzferrahhtoo

marienbad wrote: »

However I might like to be in the first group I am without question in the second.

Then you are emotionally invested and your subjective non-rational input is compromised at best. There is always a risk with any kind of treatment program or cure for people to become emotionally invested in positive results or positive statistics. That is why in fields like epidemiology we are forced to mediate and mitigate for that kind of effect.

marienbad wrote: »

It works for significant numbers of people

Does it though? We have gone over the figures, what ones are available, a few times in the thread and they do not look good. Perhaps you have a different threshold for "significant" than I do... but 5% is not it for me.... especially if 5% is the same figure as if you had engaged in no treatment program at all.

sopretty

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is a treatment program, often one where patients are referred to it by medical professionals or even the courts in our world. It is purporting to help people cope or recover from alcoholism. You can be pedantic over the words we use here, be it "cure" or whatever.... but if they are at any level claiming to be able to help people recover from this condition then that is enough for my words to apply.



Not on this thread, and not by you, it has not. No.



Then I can only suggest you stop. I certainly have not being engaging in it. As I said you appear to think assertion is conclusion here and that simply saying it is not a religious organisation magically makes it so. The texts of the 12 steps however are riddled with theistic language. If you want to ignore it and pretend otherwise, that clearly is your right, but let us not engage in it while forgetting that pretending is all it is.



I am sure that is true of lots of them, but not all. I think I get the impression that AA subscribe to this "One drink, one drunk" all-or-nothing mentality that complete abstinence is the only solution, ever.

Whether my impression is true or not, the claim certainly is not. There are those who do learn moderation. Abstinence might be the only solution for some, but I would be wary of anyone who even suggests it is the solution for all.

I think that if you can learn moderation then you were never an alcoholic to start with. I personally feel that there are pathological alcoholics and then heavy drinkers. I too would love to see more scientific research into alcoholism and prevention of it!

nozzferrahhtoo

sopretty wrote: »

I think that if you can learn moderation then you were never an alcoholic to start with. I personally feel that there are pathological alcoholics and then heavy drinkers. I too would love to see more scientific research into alcoholism and prevention of it!

That would be a personal definition of the word then, not an official one. You are simply defining an alcoholic then as anyone who has failed to stop. But as a few have pointed out here even people who have stopped entirely still consider themselves alcoholics. Just dry alcoholics.

To me it is a dependency, not a disease. And if you can learn moderation, even extreme moderation, then where is the dependency?

I have known alcoholics who now drink only in extreme moderation. That i on the rare occasion they go out to a meal, for example, they have a glass or two of wine with that dinner, and then they go home.

Complete abstinence is of course the solution and goal for many. But it is not the solution or goal for all. And an all-or-nothing attitude there is likely not as universal as it could be.

gaynorvader

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That would be a personal definition of the word then, not an official one. You are simply defining an alcoholic then as anyone who has failed to stop. But as a few have pointed out here even people who have stopped entirely still consider themselves alcoholics. Just dry alcoholics.

To me it is a dependency, not a disease. And if you can learn moderation, even extreme moderation, then where is the dependency?

I have known alcoholics who now drink only in extreme moderation. That i on the rare occasion they go out to a meal, for example, they have a glass or two of wine with that dinner, and then they go home.

Complete abstinence is of course the solution and goal for many. But it is not the solution or goal for all. And an all-or-nothing attitude there is likely not as universal as it could be.

There are in all probability two kinds of alcoholics; those who can learn moderation and those who are unable. I agree with sopretty that more research needs to be done.

mathepac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... It is purporting to help people cope or recover from alcoholism. You can be pedantic over the words we use here, be it "cure" or whatever.... but if they are at any level claiming to be able to help people recover from this condition then that is enough for my words to apply. ...

We have now begun to engage in a surreal debate. You demand proof / evidence / measurement / statistics that AA works and yet when it comes to language, words mean what you choose them to mean, both your own and other people's.

The simple fact is that nowhere does AA or any 12-step-based treatment programme offer a "cure" for any condition.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... Not on this thread, and not by you, it has not. No..l.

Certainly not by me, but by AA's own exquisitely clear literature, and I choose to believe what it has to say, particularly in the light of your Alice-like contention about "cure". "... The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things.." and your reliance on a popular science magazine article as your sole source of reference.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... Then I can only suggest you stop. I certainly have not being engaging in it. ...

I don't have to stop. Cancer was introduced by you here in your inimitable “what-aboutery" style http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88999268&postcount=33 ... “And what about people who have never had cancer ...” as well as "what-aboutery" references to homeopathy. So please, be accurate when suggesting where the “what-aboutery” started and who used the term.

AA members have a wise saying - “Be careful pointing an accusing finger at someone else - three of your fingers still point back at you."

So why not stop the “what-aboutery”, and / or provide accurate statistics as to where it was used, by whom and how often?

sopretty

gaynorvader wrote: »

There are in all probability two kinds of alcoholics; those who can learn moderation and those who are unable. I agree with sopretty that more research needs to be done.

And by my definition, if you were able to learn moderation, you are not an alcoholic!

marienbad

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then you are emotionally invested and your subjective non-rational input is compromised at best. There is always a risk with any kind of treatment program or cure for people to become emotionally invested in positive results or positive statistics. That is why in fields like epidemiology we are forced to mediate and mitigate for that kind of effect.



Does it though? We have gone over the figures, what ones are available, a few times in the thread and they do not look good. Perhaps you have a different threshold for "significant" than I do... but 5% is not it for me.... especially if 5% is the same figure as if you had engaged in no treatment program at all.

Indeed you are absolutely correct about my emotional investment and that does present difficulties but not insurmountable ones .

I could also say you are driven by ideology and thus in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Would you be opposed to the other 12 step programmes - Betty Ford Clinic etc ?

On the figures- I gave a link from Scientific America that would indicate the figure of 5% is understated .

At the end of the day-what actually is your argument ? Are you saying such programmes should be prohibited, regulated or what ?

Are there alternatives available ?

rughdh

sopretty wrote: »

It is very much a scientific problem to the sufferer.

I'm not dismissing the fact that alcohol dependency has very real and debilitating effects on the person dependent and can cause permanent and progressive bodily harm, but addressing the alcohol consumption in isolation without looking at issues such as a personal history of trauma hinders recovery. I'm not suggesting AA doesn't address underlying emotional problems, more that if we are told that alcohol dependency is a disease we may expect medicine and medicine alone to provide the solution while ignoring stuff like a history of emotional trauma.

marienbad

rughdh wrote: »

I'm not dismissing the fact that alcohol dependency has very real and debilitating effects on the person dependent and can cause permanent and progressive bodily harm, but addressing the alcohol consumption in isolation without looking at issues such as a personal history of trauma hinders recovery. I'm not suggesting AA doesn't address underlying emotional problems, more that if we are told that alcohol dependency is a disease we may expect medicine and medicine alone to provide the solution while ignoring stuff like a history of emotional trauma.

AA does address the underlying problems , in fact 99 % of the programme is directed towards that end.

A disease,a dependency, is really irrelevant to the sufferer. I suspect the desire to have it classified as such is more to do with removing the stigma than anything else. But can we agree it is not just a lack of willpower ?

One thing we haven't discussed is that it is not just about stopping drinking - it is about being content in that decision and not just living a life of hanging on in there. If it were I would have no interest.

gaynorvader

sopretty wrote: »

And by my definition, if you were able to learn moderation, you are not an alcoholic!

I think the definition of alcoholism is "a dependency on alcohol". So if someone is able to drink in moderation, then I guess they would no longer be an alcoholic.

sopretty

marienbad wrote: »

AA does address the underlying problems , in fact 99 % of the programme is directed towards that end.

A disease,a dependency, is really irrelevant to the sufferer. I suspect the desire to have it classified as such is more to do with removing the stigma than anything else. But can we agree it is not just a lack of willpower ?

One thing we haven't discussed is that it is not just about stopping drinking - it is about being content in that decision and not just living a life of hanging on in there. If it were I would have no interest.

I have tried to put forward such arguments in terms of measures of efficacy of a treatment. Obviously non sufferers see it very much as a matter of will power and would happily see abstinence as a measure of success. They ignore the complete and utter mental torture you undergo while merely abstaining. They ignore the war in your head. They ignore the causes for alcoholism and just look at the symptom ie the drinking.

sopretty

I would love if some long term research was done on children, through to adulthood. The amount of times that I have heard now alcoholics referring to feeling 'different' as children is at least at 50%. There are so many times that I have heard things like 'I felt like I was on the outside, observing life'. Before ever they took a drink!

I would love to see a point in time where you could 'diagnose' alcoholism in someone before they start drinking.

Nobody I know likes this idea lol. Yet alcoholics by their own testimony felt different from a young age.

sopretty

Just to add, that is how I always felt too. I had a pretty tough childhood and was pathologically shy, so it's hard to tell whether it was the chicken or the egg in my case.
I remember consciously making a decision to observe how the normal children behaved, so that I could mimic them.
I did this.
I spent a life time acting!
I am currently toying with the notion of saving up money to get privately assessed for aspergers.

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again I commented directly on that too. Your definition of "ignore" is therefore entirely unrecognizable to me. Already the word "him" imparts characteristics onto this god. The word "him" is a personal pronoun. Had the text said "as we understand that word" you might have some ground to stand on. As it is now you have as much ground to stand on as Wile E Coyote threading air before plummeting off the edge of a cliff.

And the steps after this then go to to ascribe all kinds of other attributes to this god. Attributes that are all perfectly recognisable to anyone even passingly familiar with western and some eastern religions. And the 12 traditions then go on to call this "god" "loving". Can you show me anything but a conscious entity capable of love? I am agog.

So no, I will keep my analogy un-amended by your distortions thank you, as the only one guilty of the "selective interpretation" you speak of, is you yourself.

OK, so you wish to continue with the superficial understanding of how 12-step programs work?!

That's fair enough - btw, I'm no expert either - It'll be indulged anyway.


To return to the analogy, for a second: it's like walking into a room and saying "hi, Jon" and then speaking to everyone else in the room while ignoring "Jon". "Jon" is still being ignored, despite the fact that he was, initially, acknowldged.

The compromise was to say that "as we understood "Jon" was being dismissed.

The issue was that the reasons for dismissing that key part of the actual text was based on the imagined dynamics of a 12-step group.


The expansion on the "actual text" is hinging on the male personal pronoun, like the way some people refer to their cars as "her" or "she" ("She's a twin turbo bah!") - it is a completely superficial understanding. As mentioned, the "big book" expands on that.

Just to re-iterate, if the argument is based on the "actual text" of the 12-steps and the 12-traditions (yes, some reading ahead was done) then that is still little more than a superficial understanding.

Btw, that painting on the side of the cliff that looks like a tunnel, isn't actually a tunnel - people might believe that it is a tunnel, based on their previous experience of what tunnels look like, but if they try to run through that tunnel, they may find that their preconceptions don't serve them particularly well, in this instance - rustling bushes and all that.


Also, what is meant by "all kinds" of characteristics? Apart from the male personal pronoun and the ability to remove defects of character, what other attributes are "perfectly recognisable"?


Also, which "eastern religions" are being referred to? Christianity could, technically be referred to as "an eastern religion" depending on your geographical location. Presumably though, what is meant by "eastern religions" is hinduism, buddhism, jainism, (what's that japanese one?), Taoism....there's probably tonnes more.



It might be worth pointing out though, that the point being made - about a prescribed understanding of what "God" is has probably defeated iteself, by the mention of "western [religions]" and "eastern religions". If any of the aforementioned "eastern religions" were the religions in mind, then the argument would hinge on equating the "God" of each religion to each other as well as finding a "God" in Buddhism.



Please tell me that this is not just the first paragraph?!


Can we consider the point of "peer pressuring people into believing a particular conceptualisation of 'God' " closed?


But, it would be unfair not to allow for some places where people mispeak



I have a feeling I might exceed the character limit here...
...
so, I'll break it up

roosh

and no, the strategy is not to write so much as to wear the other person down, it's to be so flabbergasted at the complete lack of research from someone who probably espouses infromed opinions as the basis of their world!


This is a smoke break btw

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes that is what I have read though I tend to focus my reading more on AA today than back then. So my history of it is not 100% clear or researched. The group in question was called the "Oxford Group" I have been lead to believe. A onservative, highly religious cult group created by the Lutheran Frank Buchman.... a man noted in history for saying "I thank heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler”.

I am not sure the procedures for treating any kind of mental or psychological condition should be thrown together subjectively by religious organisations at the best of times, let alone organisations of the nature of that one.

This is possibly like Christmas Day during world war 1, where both sides come together to sing silent night and play soccer- I'm not overly familiar with the Oxford groups either and I've heard they were sooooper, soooooper christian, but I also read that, with regard to the steps, there was no emphasis on what sect of christianity a person practiced - and we all know how certain sects of christianity kill each other over what sect they are (don't know, just read something from a google search).


Also, what is that "law" that, if an online discussion goes on long enough, then someone will mention the Nazis? I could google it, but I'm too lazy...


It might be worth mentioning that the 12-steps were adapted from the steps of the Oxford groups - they are not the exact same steps....also worth noting what the steps actually involve - self-examination and making amends, along with meditation (prayer is another subject of debate)

Also worth noting, the treatment of that psychological illness wasn't thrown together by a religious group; the 12-steps developed bcos there was no medical solution at the time and someone who seemed to have recovered from alcoholism approached another alcoholic to let them know.

Then that alcoholic, having found some hope in the recovery of another alcoholic - believed that there may be something worthwhile in the recovering alcoholics method; then that second alcoholic adapted the recovering alcoholics method to make it "less christian".

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your definition of "uninformed" appears to be as useful (that is to say: not) or as accurate (again: not) as your definition of "ignored". Given that, not only do I know the above perfectly well, but I have commented on it at length throughout the thread. I have questioned the grounds upon which people can assert the above, the motivation for making that assertion, and the effects it may or may not have to do so. And none of the answers I am getting back, those that exist that is, are good.

It might be useful to keep this point short so:
the above assertion being a superficial understanding of the teachings of 12-step programs?

So far, it seems limited to the text of the 12-steps and the 12-traditions.

Which serves as a reminder that a point should be made about the selective reading of the 12-traditions.


OK, so the counter-assertion is that it isn't a superficial understanding; which would amount to more than just a selective reading of both texts; elaboration is required here.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is a direct contradiction therefore. As the above describes the exact opposite of powerlessness. It describes leading a person to a point where they find that power, and then implement it.

Again, the point of "superficial understanding" is raised.

The steps say "powerlessness over alcohol [addiction]".

This point was raised earlier, but if it needs to be further clarified please say so.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If an AA meeting is not about the tenets, 12 steps, beliefs and ideas of AA then what makes it "AA" except the name on the door. You are diluting down what "AA" is to the point that it is now indistinguishable from any other open social support group.

You appear to want to have your cake and eat it. You want to laud AA and have AA and defend AA.... but then when talking about AA you break it down to such a dilute form that one is left not even knowing what you mean by "AA" at all.

If you are here ACTUALLY defending the idea of having a social support group then you have missed the mark as much as you are preaching to the choir. Because I have not once argued against that on any level.

Again, the point of "superficial understanding" needs to be raised.

There are meetings - the support group aspect - where people talk about their experience in addiction and recovery; in these meetings, newcomers come and talk about their experience in addiction; there are people in these meetings who have worked through the 12-steps, with a sponsor - outside of the meetings. Newcomers, who don't pack it in, hear others talking, eventually find someone who has worked through the steps - that they feel they can relate to - and then find a "sponsor" (the person who has been abstinent for a relatively long time and to whom they can relate) and this person guides them through the steps - outside of meetings.


Again, it seems that there is a superficial understanding of the 12-step recovery program.


I do like cake though, and have am still struggling to understand the philosophical issue between having cake and eating it - unless having your cake and eating it too means eating the same piece of cake twice (although I presume it is a literary reference)

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In a way: Both. Not only not following any such things, but also resisting any attempts to establish such a thing in the first place. If you actually read back over my posts in the thread you will find I am less telling people who I think such things should be treated so much as telling people what kinds of questions we should be asking, how we should be asking them, and what we should be doing if and when we get those answers.

That people take those posts as a direct attack simply suggests they are not reading them. The only two things I am attacking are 1) The blatant theistic nature of the program, that you simply head in the sand deny is there and 2) The refusal to engage with the kind of questions I am asking, and the motivations that lie behind that.

Thanks be to God [as I understand her] this is the last paragrpah!

The question that was being asked, perhaps indirectly, was: what are the best practices for treating addiction - can they be stated clearly, for the purpose of this discussion - and how do 12-step programs deviate from those best practices?

I'm fairly certain that you will find little disagreement from any member of a 12-step program that there should be more research into the nature of addiction - the causes and cures.

There will undoubtedly be those who think AA, or the 12-steps, are the only way, but you will probably get that with any treatment program - such is human nature.


If people take posts, in an Atheist and Agnostic fourm, that denigrate the 12-step program, as an attack then those people are probably just as susceptible to human nature as the rest of us. Just like, if people take a defence of the 12-step program as "bible bashers standing up for their imaginary friend" then they probably have limited experience with 12-step programs - which is understandable - and associate the term "God" with what they already know.


I agree with you to a certain extent, on the surface, it does seem pretty theistic; the use of the word "God" alone, qualifies it as such - unless we are speaking about eastern religions. But, and it cannot be emphasized enough, "as we understood him" is absolutely critical.


Personally, I ended up closer to buddhism than any of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, and buddhism has no concept of "God".

I also got turned off by the way people used to use the term "God". But there is, unquestionably, value in the steps: self-examination, making amends, and practicing meditation.



I'm also playing 7-2 off suit!

roosh

Apologies, there were a few points I forgot to go back to:

12-traditions - loving god
the text states...."as He may express Himself in our group conscience"


Can you show me anything but a conscious entity capable of love?
I can try to espouse my understanding of God, if you want?

rughdh

sopretty wrote: »

I have tried to put forward such arguments in terms of measures of efficacy of a treatment. Obviously non sufferers see it very much as a matter of will power and would happily see abstinence as a measure of success. They ignore the complete and utter mental torture you undergo while merely abstaining. They ignore the war in your head. They ignore the causes for alcoholism and just look at the symptom ie the drinking.

I sometimes use drink as a crutch, sometimes food. I can put away a lot of both. When I'm not overeating/drinking, it's because my emotional state has improved. Addressing the emotional distress is key and also potentially very difficult depending on how it's conducted. Will power doesn't come into it. It doesn't work. I have absolutely no problem at all in acknowledging the suffering, but calling it a disease is counterproductive and makes it impossible to address effectively. The disease is the effects of the alcohol on the body, not the dependency.

roosh

rughdh wrote: »

I sometimes use drink as a crutch, sometimes food. I can put away a lot of both. When I'm not overeating/drinking, it's because my emotional state has improved. Addressing the emotional distress is key and also potentially very difficult depending on how it's conducted. Will power doesn't come into it. It doesn't work. I have absolutely no problem at all in acknowledging the suffering, but calling it a disease is counterproductive and makes it impossible to address effectively. The disease is the effects of the alcohol on the body, not the dependency.

it's a spiritual disease, which depends on your understanding of spiritual.

psychological suggests that talking to a counsellor or psychiatrist will solve it, but I think meditation is the key - meditation being a spiritual practice

sopretty

rughdh wrote: »

I sometimes use drink as a crutch, sometimes food. I can put away a lot of both. When I'm not overeating/drinking, it's because my emotional state has improved. Addressing the emotional distress is key and also potentially very difficult depending on how it's conducted. Will power doesn't come into it. It doesn't work. I have absolutely no problem at all in acknowledging the suffering, but calling it a disease is counterproductive and makes it impossible to address effectively. The disease is the effects of the alcohol on the body, not the dependency.

I completely disagree.