A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

sopretty

sopretty wrote: »

I completely disagree.

I must state, if I have not made it obvious through my statements so far, that I am not sober.
I understand the questioning of non alcoholics.
My own psychiatrist told me that he learned more from me than he ever had in any study. He said that they learn academically about such an apparent phenomenon but that they find it difficult to figure out who is feigning them until he meets people like me of which he is unequivocally decided.

sopretty

The phenomenon I refer to is a craving to drink

roosh

sopretty wrote: »

I must state, if I have not made it obvious through my statements so far, that I am not sober.
I understand the questioning of non alcoholics.
My own psychiatrist told me that he learned more from me than he ever had in any study. He said that they learn academically about such an apparent phenomenon but that they find it difficult to figure out who is feigning them until he meets people like me of which he is unequivocally decided.

I think there might be a game of thrones meme that might anticipate the coming onslaught:

brace yourselves
...
the easy target shooting is coming.


hashtag: poisoning the well

sopretty

roosh wrote: »

I think there might be a game of thrones meme that might anticipate the coming onslaught:

brace yourselves
...
the easy target shooting is coming.


hashtag: poisoning the well

Can you explain this post?

Brian Shanahan

marienbad wrote: »

How would you classify it ? I am not hung up on its classification and I ask just out of interest. In many ways I see it as similar to depression.

As an addiction, plain and simple.

Brian Shanahan

roosh wrote: »

hashtag: poisoning the well

Claiming others are poisoning the well when they are not is poisoning the well.

But that is a good summary of a lot of the pro-AAers posts here.

Brian Shanahan

gaynorvader wrote: »

As for this being an attack on AA, for some people maybe it is.

It is not an attack on AA it is an attack on those who uncritically treat it as gospel despite the good evidence showing that it is not an effective treatment system.

ROB123456789

yes 34 years now - I AND All the rest of the people who go Don't get into the very debate you are now( yep sober ALL that time) I've no religious affiliation.
What AA does give someone who really wants to clean up, a community of association of like minded people of YOUR AGE & Social class - group - peer support - be you be from an Amazon pygmie community or Eskimo conclave - sure AA can be full of bollox too. Excuse the pun :it's a wide church!!
I tried getting sober drinking coffee with my old crowd ... They praised me til I felt so sick of their patronising ' your so good'
I wanted to puke! but ordered a large vodka instead. I was back ! In the place My family & friends 'wanted' me to be.
Take care whatever way you decide to clean up ( if you decide your life is going no where & going downhill) only an average of 10% of addicts remain alive and sober after a period of 10yrs or
so years . At least that is the stat that most research showed ( do some yourself) WHATEVER an addict does to recovery. AA or the like have given me a loose group of pals (and love interests) like a kinda of replacement family . I gone clubbing - gigging- hill walking etc wiv AAs ( never work with addicts tho) !!!
Another group I trust is Sarg Marg a no frills meditation system of about 30 regulars in dublin - original headed up by an avant-garde Shrink in dublin. N. b ther's a 'spiritual leader' yes in India ! addicts alone are bad company alone - mainly - But I've met the very rare dry and happy alcoholic ( my tutor- mentor at college was an example ( least -I THINK) he is confortable without a therapeutic group. That's what AA etc is. Although he retires this year from a busy job - his wife is dead - and was gonna buy a dog !!
Best wishes - whatever you decide it's a wonderful journey - sober rob

marienbad

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It is not an attack on AA it is an attack on those who uncritically treat it as gospel despite the good evidence showing that it is not an effective treatment system.

Is there an effective treatment system ?

marienbad

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It is not an attack on AA it is an attack on those who uncritically treat it as gospel despite the good evidence showing that it is not an effective treatment system.

I don't think that is quite fair Brian, I don't think anyone is accepting AA uncritically .And it must be looked it in comparision to the alternatives .

Would you accept that the lack of a creditable alternative is a valid point in this discussion ?

ROB123456789

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It is not an attack on AA it is an attack on those who uncritically treat it as gospel despite the good evidence showing that it is not an effective treatment system.

Hi again Brian a good bit of my 1st Essey'' to you on AA was lost. Your right AA is no more effective than mostI other methods - I get lonely it gives me friends and hope - I don't need to self medicate blaming ' the World ' for my misfortune and thus drink to induced morbidity - we all want friends . humour and sex , all these quisi- groups AA et all offer these human relations often missing in problem drinkers/drug users. Treatment. I.e. the Rutland centre -group therapy - challenging delusions and myths we often act on as if they were reality. again most of these slip in some form of god consciousness. - than AA motto : take what you like and leave the rest rob

ROB123456789

Hey there again Brian. I posted a long 'easay' a bought my thoughts on AA and the god but. I guess from reading some of the posts you've got 'hammered' by the sted nazis et al !! I go for 35 yrs & and I'm sober 34 continuously,the odd thing for me is when I give up all the force hope that AA and other systems exult I am left with my own inner preciousness - innocent wonder - and a momentary feeling of awe and peace - this event is so far from my normal everyday being - it feels like ... Well... a god experience ...it is random and happens when we as people are out of our cognitive process. As for success rates these stats are highly debatable - around average of 8-10% of folk stay sober over the long haul - who ever is claiming there system 'full proof' it's just the little boy whistling on the dark to not be afraid . in most cases of addiction I've come up against - the alkogolism is covering up anxiety and depression disorders- sorry but to be an addict who have to also have a comorbdity GAD, PTSD. BI-Polar et al. bottom line : all mental health issues have a lowered amount of dopamine in the brain ( for happiness & well being) but that's a longer story ....

nozzferrahhtoo

roosh wrote: »

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

No, but you wish to continue to pretend that that is what I am doing. Your choice, but the result of that choice is simply that you will maintain a pedastal of talking past me, rather than with me.

Nor is the "male pronoun" the only point I was making. If you focus on that alone then you are simply trying to engage in reduction of my points. There is a lot more than the male pronoun in there which draws clear and unmistakable parallels to theistic thought.

These are attributes like the capability to hear AND act on prayer. Giving over your will to it. The power of god to change you and your personality and traits. Humbly "asking" him to act. This god in the text is even said to have a "will". Please show me how anything but an intentional intelligent agent has a "will". Plus "knowledge of His will for us" is eactly the kind of theistic thought we are used to.... gods design, intent, and plan for us.

As I said, if you want to pretend that this is not the god of thesitic religions then by all means do so. I am not here to stop you. But I will certainly not let anyone lose sight of the fact that it IS pretending.

roosh wrote: »

It might be worth mentioning that the 12-steps were adapted from the steps of the Oxford groups

I already did mention it. It is the fact that groups are just throwing steps together as they personally want them that bothers me. Is this a useful way to build treatment programmes?

roosh wrote: »

also worth noting what the steps actually involve -

And I have mentioned this also on numerous occasions in the thread. I have not once denied that there are things I expect to be genuinely useful and beneficial at the core of things like AA. It is what is built up around that core that I question the effects of.

If you want to reduce AA to nothing more than "Alcoholics finding support and understanding in other alcoholics" then I doubt there is anyone, much less myself, who is going to question that too heavily. We have simply reverted to preaching to the choir.

roosh wrote: »

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

You can raise it, re-raise it, and raise it again all you like in a flood of long posts all directed at me instead of one single post directed at me. I have however addressed it ONCE in this post and you can consider that once to apply to all cases of you repeating yourself.

nozzferrahhtoo

marienbad wrote: »

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

Of course not. I pointed that out myself. We have methodologies for evaluating the efficacy of a treatment of treatments that mediate for the investment people might have in those programs. My point exactly. The problem is that things like AA resist the application of such methodologies. They resist allowing the kind of questions to be asked that I feel need to be asked.

marienbad wrote: »

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

You could say it of course. But as I had to point out to another user on the thread.... saying something does not make it true.

marienbad wrote: »

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

Again I am not "opposed" to any of these things on the face of them. Not AA, not anything. I am "opposed" to religious based programs trying to offer people cures. But that is a different issue. I am not "opposed" to anything these people do I am just "opposed" to them not evaluating their own methods using the evaluation methods and tools we have long had available to us.

I do not want to attack or shut down these things.... yet..... I simply want certain categories of questions to be asked and evaluated pertaining to them. Questions that simply arent being let be asked, let alone ANSWERED.

If you think I am somehow over all "opposed" to them then I fear I have failed to carry the point of my posts across at all, or the reader has simply missed said point.

marienbad wrote: »

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

And is it not funny that the people on your "side" of this discussion belittle and disparage a link to SA when it goes against them, but have said NOTHING to you at all when you cite it? People sometimes truely do wear their biases on their sleeve for the world to see.

However I and at least one other user have addressed the problems with the figures from that article already. Go back and re-read my posts about how sample sets are selected.

The 5% figure comes from a glimpse of AAs own internal literature too.

marienbad wrote: »

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

I am saying the efficacy of all programs should be openly evaluated using the tools of things like epidemiology that we have available to us. I am saying that the data that comes back from such inquiry should be fed back into the system to improve such programs. And I am saying that when such programs then come up with a list of "Best practices and approaches" due to that process.... that they are rolled out and regulated and applied correctly.

Unclear at this point which part of that paragraph users replying so frequently to me.... actually have a problem with.

marienbad wrote: »

Are there alternatives available ?

I answered that in a previous post. It would be polite if you would at least read my posts before replying to them.

marienbad wrote: »

A disease,a dependency, is really irrelevant to the sufferer.

Of course it is. The patient is only ever concerned with the symptom, not the cause. If I go to a doctor with feinting fits I just want those fits to be cured.

The person concerned with the cause is the person treating the condition, assisting in treatment of the condition, or supporting treatment of the condition.

The patient may be indifferent to the cause, but to the person treating it it is not just important.... it is PARAMOUNT.

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

Then you also agree with me The hammer point of just about every point I have made on this thread is that more research is required. Especially on organisations who inherently resist research.

Alas to some of the zealots of the cult surrounding AA, even wanting to ask the kind of questions I want to have asked is enough to warrant a strong emotional backlash of a response. Which in itself should ring warning bells both in us, and the people doing it.

sopretty wrote: »

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

Which as I said is your own definition. I do not see it remotely matching anything in the medical literature on the subject however. Can you just clarify, is this solely your own subjective definition or are you drawing on any source for it?

nozzferrahhtoo

mathepac wrote: »

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

Again: They purport to be a program that assists people in recovering from dependency on alcohol. Courts and medical doctors refer people to it for this reason. That alone is enough for every thing I have said so far on this thread to apply. You can equivocate over words like "cure" all you want, but you will simply miss the point that what I am saying does not depend on what word you use.

mathepac wrote: »

Certainly not by me, but by AA's own exquisitely clear literature

Which I have referred to on numerous occasions. Funny how some throw words like "ignore" around yet I appear to be the only one actually referencing the text when I write.

Again: Not only do they use the word "god" in the 12 steps, they use words that assign multiple attributes to this "god". And those attributes are all but indistinguishable from the language we hear every day from theists in western and much eastern culture.

mathepac wrote: »

I don't have to stop.

Then do not. But do not bemoan the use of whatiffery therefore when you are the only one engaged in it, and the only one outright refusing to stop using it.

Though to be honest it seems the issues lies with your inability to tell the difference between "Whataboutary" and "Analogy". I often use the latter. If you need to miscontrue the latter as the former to carry a point, then perhaps reconsider whether the point was worth carrying in the first place.

mathepac wrote: »

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

A bit derivative isn't it? It is just a re-wording of "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone".

sopretty

Nozz. You are contradicting yourself here a wee bit. On the one hand you are saying that the cause of a condition is of paramount importance, but you are not demanding research into alcoholism. You are only demanding research into AA's methodology. If we knew more about the illness (did you watch the video link I posted?), then we might go a little further in devising a solution with a higher success rate.
In-roads were made in beginning to treat depression, once the medics figured out that a chemical imbalance was involved.
No such evolution has occurred with alcoholism for 2 reasons in my opinion.
1. Because we can't even define it, let alone look at the causes
2. There is no interest by pharmaceutical companies to conduct any research as there is probably no money to be made!
Also, can you please clarify from what basis you are claiming that aa fails to provide information? At the very end of the book, aa explicitly states that they would welcome medical enquiries!
Have you ever tried contacting their central offices?

nozzferrahhtoo

sopretty wrote: »

Nozz. You are contradicting yourself here a wee bit. On the one hand you are saying that the cause of a condition is of paramount importance, but you are not demanding research into alcoholism.

Then I am afraid the contradiction exists entirely in your imagination because I am very much all for research into alcoholism. If you managed some how to get the impression from my posts that I am not..... then I can do nothing more than express bafflement at either my inability to express myself.... your inability to understand me..... or some combination of the two.

sopretty wrote: »

You are only demanding research into AA's methodology.

No I am not. Any apparent focus you might be getting in this regard is likely caused by nothing more than the fact this thread is more about AA than it is about alcoholism. Therefore my points are likely to be equally weighted, which might in turn be the source of your confusion.

I am very much into research on both.

sopretty

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then I am afraid the contradiction exists entirely in your imagination because I am very much all for research into alcoholism. If you managed some how to get the impression from my posts that I am not..... then I can do nothing more than express bafflement at either my inability to express myself.... your inability to understand me..... or some combination of the two.



No I am not. Any apparent focus you might be getting in this regard is likely caused by nothing more than the fact this thread is more about AA than it is about alcoholism. Therefore my points are likely to be equally weighted, which might in turn be the source of your confusion.

I am very much into research on both.

Are you going to answer the questions I have asked?

mathepac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... a program that assists people in recovering from dependency on alcohol. ...

Correct. No "cures", no guarantees, no fees, just an abstinence-based programme that has worked for eighty-ish years, run by AA members for AA members.

Judges and medics are intelligent people, with the interests of both their individual clients and society at large entrusted to them. If their perception is that AA works or is useful, why would we need to measure anything? Unless of course you believe that judges, medics or other professionals would knowingly refer clients to services or programmes they know to be harmful.

In the absence of proven or even suspected harm to individuals or society, wholesale waste of public funds (like the HSE's drug and alcohol 'education' programme), there is no sustainable case for attempting to gather statistics from or about a legal, successful, private, locally based, self-funding, organisation with individual anonymity as a core principle.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... You can equivocate over words like "cure" all you want, ...

No equivocation. The word "cure" has a specific meaning; in this particular case even Wikipedia manages to give a good definition of "cure", which goes beyond anything AA offers in its well documented programme of on-going treatment.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... Which I have referred to on numerous occasions. ...

Selective references, out of context and a refusal to see them in context when referred to elaborations in the same AA programme material.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... Again: Not only do they use the word "god" in the 12 steps, they use words that assign multiple attributes ... those attributes are all but indistinguishable from the language we hear every day from theists in western and much eastern culture. ...

I've explained the god-word in AA. The word itself seems to hold some fascination for you as you can't see past its having any meaning or interpretation other than your own narrow one.

I'll take your word on the theist stuff as you seem fixated by it and personally I don't spend every day listening to theists from any culture.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... Then do not. ...

I've never mentioned whatiffery or used it and I've shown clearly where the whataboutery came from. I haven’t seen any useful or meaningful analogies in your posts, just the repeated whataboutery.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...A bit derivative isn't it? It is just a re-wording of "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone".

I'll take your word for it. Yet more evidence of god / bible / theism fascination. I learned in infant school from Sister Cecily that "God is everywhere" and that certainly seems to be the case in your posts.

Is this the atheist version of McCarthyism, where there was a "red under every bed"? Do you now see "the holy ghost in every post"?

Did it ever occur to you that the proverb I used is secular, translated from Chinese?

marienbad

The main objection to AA at this stage seem to be the following-

- It is religious based

-it has no proven track record

-it is resistant to change

- it is resistant to working with other Addiction services

If that is incorrect please correct me .

On the religion thing, it is foolish to dispute that, but it does make provision for those of us opposed to religion . I suspect the original founders thought or hoped that in time we would find religion but that is not explicit .
And if one is parsing the literature one must accept the exemptions as well as the recommendations. I can't see how it can be otherwise. I am an atheist and I am in AA and I am sober . I know of others of the same belief, not many but they are there.

In other countries with larger population actual agnostic groups are springing up but as yet to my knowledge there are none in Ireland.

On track record.
Here is an excerpt from this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746426/

'' Readers must judge for themselves whether their interpretation of these results, on balance, supports a recommendation that there is no experimental evidence of AA effectiveness (as put forward by the Cochrane review). As for the scorecard for the other criteria, the evidence for AA effectiveness is quite strong: Rates of abstinence are about twice as high among those who attend AA (criteria 1, magnitude); higher levels of attendance are related to higher rates of abstinence (criteria 2, dose-response); these relationships are found for different samples and follow-up periods (criteria 3, consistency); prior AA attendance is predictive of subsequent abstinence (criteria 4, temporal); and mechanisms of action predicted by theories of behavior change are evident at AA meetings and through the AA steps and fellowship (criteria 6, plausibility).

I am not qualified to analyse that study ,but on balance it seems to be saying the AA does have better outcomes than abstinence without AA , but more research needs to be done.

- Resistance to Change
Accepted without reservation- As far as I know the only significant change in the literature was to change ''the only requirement for membership was a strong desire to stop drinking'' changed to 'a desire to stop drinking' . With the proliferation of other 12-step programmes this is less an issue than it might have been in the past.

On not working with other addiction services -
This is just not correct. It may not be as obvious as it should be as each group is autonomous and some will be more active than others. And this has been the case certainly since my earliest days in the 70's - in hospitals, prisons, and in most if not all of the treatment centres today

rorypb1

There is a lot of confusion on this thread, and after reading it, I'm none the wiser.

Let's give the man a chance to speak :

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Alas to some of the zealots of the cult surrounding AA, even wanting to ask the kind of questions I want to have asked is enough to warrant a strong emotional backlash of a response. Which in itself should ring warning bells both in us, and the people doing it.

Just to help clear it up, can you restate :

1. What are your claims regarding the AA ?
2. What is your evidence for these claims ?
3. Should an atheist who is an alcoholic avoid the AA ?
4. What alternatives can they join / employ ?

gaynorvader

marienbad wrote: »

{...}
I am not qualified to analyse that study ,but on balance it seems to be saying the AA does have better outcomes than abstinence without AA , but more research needs to be done.
{...}

I think this is something we can all agree on, and is the most important point raised in this thread.

sopretty

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think this is something we can all agree on, and is the most important point raised in this thread.

Except that I would like to see the focus on the causes, nature, definition and prevention or early diagnosis rather than on researching a current treatment.

gaynorvader

sopretty wrote: »

Except that I would like to see the focus on the causes, nature, definition and prevention or early diagnosis rather than on researching a current treatment.

Absolutely, though I would say research the causes, nature, definition, prevention/early diagnosis and a treatment.

sopretty

gaynorvader wrote: »

Absolutely, though I would say research the causes, nature, definition, prevention/early diagnosis and a treatment.

Ideally! Before I do actually become another statistic! There is little willingness in society however. The notion of choice and responsibility precludes that. We could stop if we wanted? we are lacking in moral or personal responsibility etc. selfish etc etc.... 'Just stop already!' And nobody gives a damn

roosh

sopretty wrote: »

Can you explain this post?

I was just trying to "poson the well" for anyone who wanted to use your lack of sobriety as a point of argument.

There was probably no need bcos your sobriety, or lack thereof, has no bearing on the points you make - unless the points you make are hinging on you being sober.



On a separate note though, I do hope that you are in a good place and that if the drinking starts to make life unmanageable again, that you find your way back into recovery - be that through a 12-step program, or any other program.

roosh

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Claiming others are poisoning the well when they are not is poisoning the well.

But that is a good summary of a lot of the pro-AAers posts here.

The "hashtag" was meant to highlight that it was me that was posoning the well, in this particular instance.

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No, but you wish to continue to pretend that that is what I am doing. Your choice, but the result of that choice is simply that you will maintain a pedastal of talking past me, rather than with me.

So far the points being raised have been limited to the text of the 12-steps, less so the 12-traditions, and a preconceived imagining of the religiosity of meetings based on this limited viewpoint. This is a very superficial understanding of the actual dynamics of the 12-step program and the meetings.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor is the "male pronoun" the only point I was making. If you focus on that alone then you are simply trying to engage in reduction of my points. There is a lot more than the male pronoun in there which draws clear and unmistakable parallels to theistic thought.

Unquestionably there are parallels to theistic thought, the give-away might be the use of the word "God". But there are a vast array of potential interpretations of which no specific interpretation is prescribed for members of a 12-step program. As you said, the 12-steps ascribes attributes that are all perfectly recognisable to anyone even passingly familiar with western and some eastern religions. Member are free to interpret "God" as they understand god.

This would include, but is not limited to - to try and put a term on it which will undoubtedly give rise to preconceptions - pantheism; the idea that "God" is nothing more than the universe. Under such an interpretation, as mentioned, a person might believe that the human brain, or mind, has evolved in such a way that self-examination, making amends, meditation and prayer (depending on your understanding of what "prayer" is), as well as helping others will have a transformative effect, such that one of the consequences will be the strength of will to avoid substance abuse, as well as a change in the habitual thought processes which drive addictive behaviour.


Such an interpretation is very different from the idea of an anthropomorphic god, such as the interpretation that is often ascribed to the Judeo-Christian religions. Both interpretations, as well as many more, are quite possible under the 12-steps so the idea that a particular notion of god is prescribed is a spurious notion.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

These are attributes like the capability to hear AND act on prayer. Giving over your will to it. The power of god to change you and your personality and traits. Humbly "asking" him to act. This god in the text is even said to have a "will". Please show me how anything but an intentional intelligent agent has a "will". Plus "knowledge of His will for us" is eactly the kind of theistic thought we are used to.... gods design, intent, and plan for us.

As I said, if you want to pretend that this is not the god of thesitic religions then by all means do so. I am not here to stop you. But I will certainly not let anyone lose sight of the fact that it IS pretending.

If a person subscribes to a pantheistic understanding of "God" then the understanding of those elements of the 12-steps will be quite different from the understanding of a person who subscribes to an anthropomorphic understanding.

The word "prayer" is one that gives rise to many preconceptions, usually based on a persons previous experience with what "prayer" means. A seemingly common understanding is that "prayer" is the recitation of things like "the hail mary", "our father", etc. directed towards an anthropomorphic god. However, prayer can take different forms and can be seen as a meditative practice, such as the buddhist practice of "Loving Kindness", which is different from shamatha meditation. In this sense the idea of "prayers" being "heard" is very different to the idea of an anthropomorphic god "hearing" prayers.

In this context we can look at the "actual text" of the 12-steps and see that it says "sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God". If we look at it through the lens of a pantheistic interpretation, a hindu or buddhist view perhaps, then the idea of conscious contact with god is simply what happens through meditation and "prayer" - with no anthropomorphic god listening to a cosmic radio.


Also the idea of "Will" takes on a different meaning when considered through the lens of buddhism, possibly also hinduism, because the idea of "self", "I", "me", "our" is questioned, such that the idea of "my will" is very different.

"My" will can be seen as the product of the conditioned mind, the subconscious conditioning that we are all subject to. Part of this subconscious conditioning is the conditioned thinking that drives addictive behaviour in the addict, the subconscious attachment to thoughts that leads to drinking or using. Through meditation and "prayer" a person can become more consciously aware of their thinking and habits and the subconscious attachment can be broken. In buddhism, our true nature is seen as what is left when we break this subconscious attachment to "the self"; when this is achieved our "buddha nature" is said to be revealed, I think it is referred to as "Brahmin" in Hinduism. This is essentially our "godly" nature. "Our" will is no longer driven by our subconscious conditioning and our actions can become less "self" centred. "Our" will can be driven by our "godly" nature, by our "buddha nature", or our "brahmin nature".


That is, of course, just one potential interpretation of "God as we understand him", which is quite different from certain conceptualisations of an anthropomorphic god; both interpretations are compatible with the "actual text" of the 12-steps, so, again, there is no prescribed concept of "God" that members are subversively compelled to believe in. It is very much of their own understanding and there is no need for pretence of any kind.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I already did mention it. It is the fact that groups are just throwing steps together as they personally want them that bothers me. Is this a useful way to build treatment programmes?

There are no groups that are just throwing steps together as they personally want them. The 12-steps and 12-traditions are hung in every meeting room for every meeting, but the meetings aren't necessarily about selecting which steps you want to to follow. The meetings are the support group function of the 12-step program. Within the meetings people can meet a sponsor who then takes them through the steps just as their sponsor did with them. There is no picking and choosing of the steps - of course, in practice, their might actually be those who do try to skip steps, but then they wouldn't be following the 12-step program.

There are "step meetings" where groups will focus on a different step in each meeting and discuss their experience with that step. In these meetings every step will be covered, one at a time, with a meeting dedicated to each step.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I have mentioned this also on numerous occasions in the thread. I have not once denied that there are things I expect to be genuinely useful and beneficial at the core of things like AA. It is what is built up around that core that I question the effects of.

If you want to reduce AA to nothing more than "Alcoholics finding support and understanding in other alcoholics" then I doubt there is anyone, much less myself, who is going to question that too heavily. We have simply reverted to preaching to the choir.

The issue seems to be the preconceived idea about what is "built up around that core". What you seem to believe is built up around it, in actuality, isn't there at all, because it is entirely down to each members own personal understanding.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You can raise it, re-raise it, and raise it again all you like in a flood of long posts all directed at me instead of one single post directed at me. I have however addressed it ONCE in this post and you can consider that once to apply to all cases of you repeating yourself.

The reason for the multiple posts was bcos I didn't want to exceed the character limit.

Again, basing an opinion solely on a, somewhat, selective reading of the text of the 12-steps and 12-traditions and coupling it with an imaginary perception of the dynamics of a 12-step meeting, is simply a superficial understanding. This will be highlighted with every subsequent post that betrays that superficiality.

nozzferrahhtoo

roosh wrote: »

So far the points being raised have been limited to the text of the 12-steps, less so the 12-traditions

IF you re-read my posts (or read them in this case without the re-) you will find I refereed to and commented on both.

roosh wrote: »

a preconceived imagining of the religiosity of meetings based on this limited viewpoint. This is a very superficial understanding of the actual dynamics of the 12-step program and the meetings.

You appear to have the notion that if you repeat the word "superficial" often enough you will magically move from mere repetition to having actually made a point. Repetition does not a point make however. I am not commenting on the religiosity of any one particular meeting or meetings..... given the unregulated nature of the system the religiosity is likely going to depend more on the person running it..... but I AM commenting on the text(s). And the texts are blatantly, clearly, and in your face theistic. They not just use the word "god" but go on to assign attributes to that god that are instantly recognizable to anyone even passingly familiar with Christianity or similar religion structures. A patriarchal personal pronoun who listens to prays, has a will, has an intention and design for us, can intervene, experiences love for us and so forth.

If you want to attend those meetings pretending "god" means something else to you then by all means do so. I just want to be sure we acknowledge that pretense is what it is.

roosh wrote: »

There are no groups that are just throwing steps together as they personally want them. The 12-steps and 12-traditions are hung in every meeting room for every meeting

And you have been to "every" meeting to verify that factoid then have you? Some how I doubt it, so please do not pretend to speak for anything but your own meeting here.

You are an anecdote of 1 and I have several other anecdotes to the contrary. Some people are telling me that they are made aware of the existence of the 12 steps at some meetings when they first join and then they are never mentioned, shown, referred to or used again. Which anecdotes am I to believe exactly here?

But such is the effect of having a decentralized, unregulated, ad hoc group of programmes that share little in common except the plaque name they put on the door.