Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?
Options
Comments
-
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 .
I would say it is a pretty good summary. Though I have spoken very little, and know very little, about the last thing in your list. What I have been saying on the thread focuses more on the first 3. I do not think I have said much on the 4th except a worrying reference in a magazine article.On the religion thing, it is foolish to dispute that
And yet we have people on the thread attempting to. With some gusto and hot air, but no actual substance it seems.0 -
1. What are your claims regarding the AA ?
I am not claiming all that much really. I am claiming it is a religious based program as evidenced by the text of the 12 steps. I am claiming that the kind of data we should expect from a treatment program is simply not being provided. And I am claiming that glimpses of AAs own internal documents suggest that use of AA as a treatment program has no more success (5%) than no treatment at all.2. What is your evidence for these claims ?
Which one specifically? I have pointed at length to the 12 steps and the text within them that very much talks the talk of theistic religion. The evidence backing up my claim that there is a complete lack of data on the efficacy of the program IS the complete lack of available data on the efficacy of the program. And my evidence for the 5% claims comes directly from AA literature, which is also referenced and cited in the Penn and Teller video earlier in the thread which I recommend you watch.3. Should an atheist who is an alcoholic avoid the AA ?
You would have to ask the atheist who is an alcoholic. I am not the latter, and I generally do not refer to myself as the former.
But anyone who wants any form of treatment or treatment program should certainly want to seek a program with a demonstratably good track record, a transparency in how data is collected on the efficacy of that program, and perhaps a program that is not a clear attempt to package religion to sell to the vulnerable.4. What alternatives can they join / employ ?
Too numerous and off topic to mention. AA is not the only game in town in terms of social support groups. There are also many different alternatives from drugs to counselling. Your question is a bit like asking me "How do I treat feinting". Clearly feinting is a symptom not the problem. So the answer to your general question is a simple "That depends on the cause". Some people have an addiction and the addiction itself is the problem. Some people have deeper issues of which the addiction or dependency is only the symptom, not the problem.
So what treatments or alternatives one should seek would depend entirely on what the actual problem was or is.0 -
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.
One more certainly does not preclude the other. I would like to see both done without expense to the other. We do this all the time. We research treatments for breast cancer, while also researching causes. Our approach to any disease, condition or problem should never be a single front attack, but always a multi pronged one.IThere is little willingness in society however. The notion of choice and responsibility precludes that.
Agreed. But pretending it is a disease in order to bypass that unwillingness is society is likely not going to help. It will only derail useful conversations into pedantic arguments over whether it even is a disease or not. Some people will see through the lie/attempt and be even less inclined to help than they were before.
So rather than lying to ourselves or each other we should acknowledge that it is down to the drinker to stop.... but it is up to us as a society to research and provide the best means possible to assist them to do so. It is clear some people simply can not do it alone.
So we have to acknowledge the facts of choice and responsibility. But we need to raise awareness that that responsibility falls in many ways on all of us, not just the sole and lone drinker.0 -
-
I don't think that is quite fair Brian, I don't think anyone is accepting AA uncritically.
Well considering that on one side we've got a couple of posters who are pointing out that what little data the AA has shows that its ineffective, and that it tends to try and supress other methods of solving the problem, and creates a system easily abusable and on the other side we've a lot of posters who are essentially calling us names because we want a better researched and evidence based system for dealing with the problem, I don't see how you can characterise the supporters as being in them main critical (in the scientific sense not the nagging one).
The pro-AAers are in the main using the exact same tactic that JC and other creationists use when they are faced with contrary evidence (or even a sceptical "wait a minute, how did you come to that conclusion?"). They are taking the word of an authority figure as gospel and shouting down anyone who raises their hands up and starts asking awkward questions. That is the very definition on uncritical acceptance.0 -
Advertisement
-
Brian Shanahan wrote: »Well considering that on one side we've got a couple of posters who are pointing out that what little data the AA has shows that its ineffective, and that methods it tends to try and supress other of solving the problem, and creates a system easily abusable and on the other side we've a lot of posters who are essentially calling us names because we want a better researched and evidence based system for dealing with the problem, I don't see how you can characterise the supporters as being in them main critical (in the scientific sense not the nagging one).
The pro-AAers are in the main using the exact same tactic that JC and other creationists use when they are faced with contrary evidence (or even a sceptical "wait a minute, how did you come to that conclusion?"). They are taking the word of an authority figure as gospel and shouting down anyone who raises their hands up and starts asking awkward questions. That is the very definition on uncritical acceptance.
Not so Brian.
I have posted links showing the success rates are much higher and there are many more available if anyone cares to look.
We have repeated claims that it is purely religious when its own literature overtly makes allowance for agnostics. Those agnostics/atheists may make up a very small percentage but they are there and they are facilitated. The literature says agnostics are welcome - I am an alcoholic agnostic sober and in AA, I don't know what more I can do.
As to 'AA tending to suppress other methods' - Can I reverse the trend and ask you what evidence you have for that ? I have never heard or seen anything that supports that. You may well get individual AA members spouting off that their way is the only way but not in my experience, AA works with other state run agencies all the time in combating alcoholism
http://www.alcoholicsanonymous.ie/Information-for-Professionals
Nozze mentions meetings being a kind of free for all and the 12 steps not being used at all or even shown to new members. May I ask where is the evidence for that ? I have been to 1000's of meetings in dozens of cities and countries and never,not once have I seen such a thing . But yet that will be dismissed as anecdotal - but that cuts both ways does it not ?
As for creating a system that is easily abusable - is there any evidence that this is any more an issue in AA than in any other organisation dealing with vulnerable people . AA is subject to the same rules and regulations as anyone else ,be they Vincent de Paul or the local camera club or the boy scouts for that matter.
It is listed by many secular outlets as a viable method in fighting alcoholism ,granted not the only one. But it is an endorsement nonetheless. And there are many more such references easily available.
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/support_groups_alcohol.htm
Might I ask do you and nozze think it should be banned ,have a health warning , what ?
And also could I ask ,( I might be out of line here so no probs if you don't) do you know any chronic alcoholics or drug addicts ?0 -
{...}
As for creating a system that is easily abusable - is there any evidence that this is any more an issue in AA than in any other organisation dealing with vulnerable people . AA is subject to the same rules and regulations as anyone else ,be they Vincent de Paul or the local camera club or the boy scouts for that matter.
{...}
Not sure I'd equate the members of scouts and the local camera club with AA members.
AA members are in a much more vulnerable mental state, generally speaking. I do agree that any rule and/or regulations the AA has to follow should have to be followed by anyone offering similar treatment.
As for AA catering for agnostics/atheists, I'm not sure how you can reconcile a belief in a higher power with atheism. Agnostics could be Catholic or anyone, it's a very malleable term.0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »Not sure I'd equate the members of scouts and the local camera club with AA members. AA members are in a much more vulnerable mental state, generally speaking. I do agree that any rule and/or regulations the AA has to follow should have to be followed by anyone offering similar treatment.
As for AA catering for agnostics/atheists, I'm not sure how you can reconcile a belief in a higher power with atheism. Agnostics could be Catholic or anyone, it's a very malleable term.
A higher power is whatever you want or need it to be . To clarify I am an atheist and I am not alone in being so and being in AA. There are not many I grant you .
For most it is The Christian God or a variation thereof. It can be some sort of deistic or cosmic sprit or nature itself .
It can be the combined wisdom and experience of the group. You might dismiss that as semantics as that it could be argued is a human power , but it is power outside oneself that is constant.
But you are correct it is a malleable term , which is why AA can accommodate all-comers0 -
An an atheist in AA what is your higher power, if you don't mind me asking.A higher power is whatever you want or need it to be . To clarify I am an atheist and I am not alone in being so and being in AA. There are not many I grant you .
For most it is The Christian God or a variation thereof. It can be some sort of deistic or cosmic sprit or nature itself .
It can be the combined wisdom and experience of the group. You might dismiss that as semantics as that it could be argued is a human power , but it is power outside oneself that is constant.
But you are correct it is a malleable term , which is why AA can accommodate all-comers
I have been atheist since I was 12 and, honestly, the idea of abdicating my 'power' to anyone or anything else makes me furious. I beat two eating disorders (one starving myself, one stuffing myself) without a higher power. In a week's time I will be kicking tobacco without any higher power. I have support from people who believe in me, and my ability to change my life, and if someone told me I was weak and powerless and couldn't control myself without some Magic Being keeping an eye on me I'd punch them in the godsdamned throat.
It is, in my opinion, religion; first you (generic 'you') convince them that they're weak and feeble, useless, sinful beings, and that they can't control themselves and when they've been convinced of that then you sell them God (with the rider that it doesn't have to be God-god, just somethin God-ish and magic that controls them). Just so long as it's not them. For goodness sake no-one tell them that if they want to give it up that they have the power within themselves, they might stop coming and paying their dues. As I said upthread: unless this 'higher power' is standing in off licences and pubs taking drink out of people's hands then every single person who has ever given up alcohol has done it through their own power.0 -
An an atheist in AA what is your higher power, if you don't mind me asking.
I have been atheist since I was 12 and, honestly, the idea of abdicating my 'power' to anyone or anything else makes me furious. I beat two eating disorders (one starving myself, one stuffing myself) without a higher power. In a week's time I will be kicking tobacco without any higher power. I have support from people who believe in me, and my ability to change my life, and if someone told me I was weak and powerless and couldn't control myself without some Magic Being keeping an eye on me I'd punch them in the godsdamned throat.
It is, in my opinion, religion; first you (generic 'you') convince them that they're weak and feeble, useless, sinful beings, and that they can't control themselves and when they've been convinced of that then you sell them God (with the rider that it doesn't have to be God-god, just somethin God-ish and magic that controls them). Just so long as it's not them. For goodness sake no-one tell them that if they want to give it up that they have the power within themselves, they might stop coming and paying their dues. As I said upthread: unless this 'higher power' is standing in off licences and pubs taking drink out of people's hands then every single person who has ever given up alcohol has done it through their own power.
I believe in the collective wisdom of the group .One could argue that is the product of human effort, but then so are most things medicine,science, philosophy.
But all that being said this is still the greatest stumbling block to getting sober within an AA context. But no-one is saying this is the only way to get sober ,least of all AA ,it is just one way.
And congrats to you on beating those eating disorders and I am sure you will succeed with the smokes also, I did on the cigs without recourse to a 12 step programme. But it is horses for courses
There is a general misunderstanding here of what that power entails.
- I admitted I was powerless over alcohol and my life was unmanageable
- Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity
-Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood him .
There are the 1st 3 steps and If you want them in a religious sense good luck to you, but there is a secular interpretation that is equally valid.
It is not like the moonies or the Hubbard crowd where you hand over control of your life,income, business to others. You walk anonymously into a room filled with others with the same compulsion,disorder,dependancy,disease, the meeting always follows the same format, a reading of the steps and how it works and an intro by a speaker (always an alcoholic) and the meeting is then thrown open,you speak or stay silent as the mood takes you, you listen and drop a couple of euro on the table and leave as anonymously as you came. And that it.
At its essence it is just about the 'examined life' and the tools to achieve that .
That is my take on it , others may disagree , AA may disagree .0 -
Advertisement
-
Kylith can I ask how you overcame your eating disorders?0
-
Can I just mention why step one appeals to me? The first part of the step was a bit of a cop-out to me initially. So I spent a further 4 years drinking and berating myself for being a weak piece of crap, who could quit if I really wanted to. I must be the most selfish person on the planet. I didn't accept step one at all. So I continued drinking, trying to moderate both the frequency and level of alcohol I consumed. Alarmingly to me, this did not work. Therefore, believing myself to be some sort of weak willed Jeremy Kyle type person, I attempted suicide in several occasions over those years. I then finally accepted the first part of that step. I stopped torturing myself and berating myself. I began to understand, that I had no choice in when or how much I was drinking. I stopped trying to kill myself.0
-
Kylith can I ask how you overcame your eating disorders?
The first one was a trip to near-anorexia when I was 16. I lost my appetite due to stress in school (exams and bullying) and lived on polo mints for months. The first step was realising that what I was doing was unhealthy and that I was on the way to damaging myself. So I sat down with a bowl of porridge and made myself eat it. I must have chewed the first spoonful for 15 minutes; even the thought of swallowing it made me want to vomit but I said to myself 'If you don't do this you will die. You will be one of those skeletal girls being fed through a tube. You will ruin your fertility and your life.' After I swallowed it it was so hard to keep down, but I did. Then I ate another spoonful. Every day was a little easier. I relapsed in my mid twenties after a break up and didn't get over it until I met current OH. I knew him as a friend and basically ran away to where he was living to hide from life. He noticed that I never ate more than a bite or two and when I explained that eating made me want to puke and I only ate at all because he was there he didn't judge me or try to force me to eat or tell me to cop myself on, he supported me silently and, again, each day I ate a little more. Even today any form of stress shuts down my appetite and the thought of food makes me want to puke. I think it's a control thing, I've never felt very in control of my life but I can control food. Luckily both times I recognised what I was doing to myself before it went to far but every time I'm stressed and don't want to eat I think back to how hard it was to force down that first spoonful of porridge, how just one spoon seemed to grow in my mouth until I thought I'd choke on it.
When I was stuffing myself it was as hard to fix. I spent so long in shops and supermarkets staring at food. "Am I hungry? Am I actually hungry or do I just want crisps? If I'm really hungry I should buy a banana. If I'm not hungry I should turn around and walk out now". Then I'd mentally frog-march myself either to the fruit section or out of the shop. The poor shop assistants must have thought I was mental; walking in, staring at the chocolate for ten minutes while angrily muttering to myself, then storming out again. I stopped buying chocolate and biscuits completely. I stopped buying beer too, and started walking more; I even adopted dogs to make sure I stuck with it. I'm at the stage now where I can have a bar of chocolate in the fridge for weeks and only eat a square or two now and then. Sometimes I pig out and scoff the whole thing but it's important for me not to think of that as a failure, it's a setback. I am not powerless around chocolate, I've just had a moment of weakness, and tomorrow I won't.
I know that I can do it because I have done it. If I can make myself eat on Monday even though I'm stressed then I can make myself eat on Tuesday too. If I can go a day without chocolate I can go two days. And that's what I'll be doing with the cigs when this pouch runs out; if I can not smoke on Monday I can certainly not smoke on Tuesday, and I'll take it day by day until I can't remember the last time I smoked.
If I may write my first four steps:
- I admitted to myself that I had allowed my attitude to food to control my life.
- I decided that I needed to regain this control for myself.
- I formulated a plan by which to retrain myself and so regain control.
- I confided in someone I trusted and asked for their support.0 -
The first one was a trip to near-anorexia when I was 16. I lost my appetite due to stress in school (exams and bullying) and lived on polo mints for months. The first step was realising that what I was doing was unhealthy and that I was on the way to damaging myself. So I sat down with a bowl of porridge and made myself eat it. I must have chewed the first spoonful for 15 minutes; even the thought of swallowing it made me want to vomit but I said to myself 'If you don't do this you will die. You will be one of those skeletal girls being fed through a tube. You will ruin your fertility and your life.' After I swallowed it it was so hard to keep down, but I did. Then I ate another spoonful. Every day was a little easier. I relapsed in my mid twenties after a break up and didn't get over it until I met current OH. I knew him as a friend and basically ran away to where he was living to hide from life. He noticed that I never ate more than a bite or two and when I explained that eating made me want to puke and I only ate at all because he was there he didn't judge me or try to force me to eat or tell me to cop myself on, he supported me silently and, again, each day I ate a little more. Even today any form of stress shuts down my appetite and the thought of food makes me want to puke. I think it's a control thing, I've never felt very in control of my life but I can control food. Luckily both times I recognised what I was doing to myself before it went to far but every time I'm stressed and don't want to eat I think back to how hard it was to force down that first spoonful of porridge, how just one spoon seemed to grow in my mouth until I thought I'd choke on it.
When I was stuffing myself it was as hard to fix. I spent so long in shops and supermarkets staring at food. "Am I hungry? Am I actually hungry or do I just want crisps? If I'm really hungry I should buy a banana. If I'm not hungry I should turn around and walk out now". Then I'd mentally frog-march myself either to the fruit section or out of the shop. The poor shop assistants must have thought I was mental; walking in, staring at the chocolate for ten minutes while angrily muttering to myself, then storming out again. I stopped buying chocolate and biscuits completely. I stopped buying beer too, and started walking more; I even adopted dogs to make sure I stuck with it. I'm at the stage now where I can have a bar of chocolate in the fridge for weeks and only eat a square or two now and then. Sometimes I pig out and scoff the whole thing but it's important for me not to think of that as a failure, it's a setback. I am not powerless around chocolate, I've just had a moment of weakness, and tomorrow I won't.
I know that I can do it because I have done it. If I can make myself eat on Monday even though I'm stressed then I can make myself eat on Tuesday too. If I can go a day without chocolate I can go two days. And that's what I'll be doing with the cigs when this pouch runs out; if I can not smoke on Monday I can certainly not smoke on Tuesday, and I'll take it day by day until I can't remember the last time I smoked.
If I may write my first four steps:
- I admitted to myself that I had allowed my attitude to food to control my life.
- I decided that I needed to regain this control for myself.
- I formulated a plan by which to retrain myself and so regain control.
- I confided in someone I trusted and asked for their support.
Thank you for sharing your very personal journey. I wish you a very happy future!0 -
I am sick of people who have never attended a meeting of aa, trying to disparage it.
By their understanding, a priest goes into a hospital, to find the resident alcoholic who is just coming out of the dt's.
The priest tells the patient to get off all the auld medication them auld doctors have him on, as they're bad for him.
This priest brings an AA member in to collect said unfortunate from hospital.
Said AA member hauls said unfortunate to an aa meeting. Depending on what meeting he has been hauled to he could be told that God will save him, that he doesn't need to believe in God , that God is the universe, that the 12 steps are just nonsense, that only the 12 steps will cure him, that there is no cure, that God is the cure, that he can cure himself.
Or such an unfortunate might be told, here's a biscuit, have three. Today is almost over, that's one day of sobriety almost over. Have a few more biscuits. Just try to not drink tonight and we'll see you tomorrow.0 -
I am sick of people who have never attended a meeting of aa, trying to disparage it.
By their understanding, a priest goes into a hospital, to find the resident alcoholic who is just coming out of the dt's.
The priest tells the patient to get off all the auld medication them auld doctors have him on, as they're bad for him.
This priest brings an AA member in to collect said unfortunate from hospital.
Said AA member hauls said unfortunate to an aa meeting. Depending on what meeting he has been hauled to he could be told that God will save him, that he doesn't need to believe in God , that God is the universe, that the 12 steps are just nonsense, that only the 12 steps will cure him, that there is no cure, that God is the cure, that he can cure himself.
Or such an unfortunate might be told, here's a biscuit, have three. Today is almost over, that's one day of sobriety almost over. Have a few more biscuits. Just try to not drink tonight and we'll see you tomorrow.
Nice strawman. :rolleyes:
To me it seems that the group dynamic in AA helps more than the 12 steps do.0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »Nice strawman. :rolleyes:
To me it seems that the group dynamic in AA helps more than the 12 steps do.
Why can't it be both ?0 -
-
Nozze mentions meetings being a kind of free for all and the 12 steps not being used at all or even shown to new members. May I ask where is the evidence for that ?
You may, though it might be more polite to ask me rather than talk about me in the third person in a post to someone else.
But it is not actually my claims. I am merely relaying what I have been told anecdotally by other users on this thread and on the thread about the same topic over on the City Data forum.
On such threads when I complain about certain aspects of the 12 steps I am pretty much told "Ah we do not really bother with them anyway". Or that they are mentioned on day 1 and never again. Or stuck on the wall but never referred to.
It has led me to ask such people what actually makes an AA meeting.... except for the name on the door.... if not the steps and tenets of AA. I have not had an answer to that question that actually makes a shred of sense from those people however.
I have been to 1000's of meetings in dozens of cities and countries and never,not once have I seen such a thing . But yet that will be dismissed as anecdotal - but that cuts both ways does it not ?
As for creating a system that is easily abusable - is there any evidence that this is any more an issue in AA than in any other organisation dealing with vulnerable people . AA is subject to the same rules and regulations as anyone else ,be they Vincent de Paul or the local camera club or the boy scouts for that matter.
It is listed by many secular outlets as a viable method in fighting alcoholism ,granted not the only one. But it is an endorsement nonetheless. And there are many more such references easily available.
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/support_groups_alcohol.htm
Might I ask do you and nozze think it should be banned ,have a health warning , what ?
And also could I ask ,( I might be out of line here so no probs if you don't) do you know any chronic alcoholics or drug addicts ?[/QUOTE]gaynorvader wrote: »To me it seems that the group dynamic in AA helps more than the 12 steps do.
No doubt.
At the end of the day there are 2 things that help people with addiction more than anything else. 1) A social support group/network to assist in the journey and 2) something to invest your time, energy and thoughts in to fill in the gap that the removal of your personal addiction from your life is likely to leave.
Any group.... including AA..... will offer the above. I have known people who have given up their addiction (again mainly alcohol) by joining a football club. The team offered the social support and the sport itself offered the vacuum filler to fill the gap in their lives.Why can't it be both ?
It _could_ be. The question is _is it_? And as I say above about the football club.... there is no sign whatsoever to me that it is both. AA is just offering the two things that I think are actually helpful to over come addiction. The rest is just filler and theistic marketing.
I think any proponent of AA and 12 steps will be hard pushed to find anything of any efficacy in AA or the 12 steps that it actually offers alcoholics that a football club (for example) could not offer just as well.I am sick of people who have never attended a meeting of aa, trying to disparage it.
Then perhaps a good first step to get over your feeling of nausea is to stop over reacting to what people here are saying. Much, if not most, of what is being said here is not "disparaging" at all. No, it is more a call to have programmes like AA evaluated in the same way(s) and methodologies as we evaluate any treatment or support plan.
The rest of your "By their understanding" rant in what follows in the rest of your post is a straw man that does not seem to match what people on the thread are ACTUALLY saying or espousing. Rather than address anything being said you appear to have made the choice to misrepresent it instead.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You may, though it might be more polite to ask me rather than talk about me in the third person in a post to someone else.
But it is not actually my claims. I am merely relaying what I have been told anecdotally by other users on this thread and on the thread about the same topic over on the City Data forum.
On such threads when I complain about certain aspects of the 12 steps I am pretty much told "Ah we do not really bother with them anyway". Or that they are mentioned on day 1 and never again. Or stuck on the wall but never referred to.
It has led me to ask such people what actually makes an AA meeting.... except for the name on the door.... if not the steps and tenets of AA. I have not had an answer to that question that actually makes a shred of sense from those people however.
I have been to 1000's of meetings in dozens of cities and countries and never,not once have I seen such a thing . But yet that will be dismissed as anecdotal - but that cuts both ways does it not ?
As for creating a system that is easily abusable - is there any evidence that this is any more an issue in AA than in any other organisation dealing with vulnerable people . AA is subject to the same rules and regulations as anyone else ,be they Vincent de Paul or the local camera club or the boy scouts for that matter.
It is listed by many secular outlets as a viable method in fighting alcoholism ,granted not the only one. But it is an endorsement nonetheless. And there are many more such references easily available.
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/support_groups_alcohol.htm
Might I ask do you and nozze think it should be banned ,have a health warning , what ?
And also could I ask ,( I might be out of line here so no probs if you don't) do you know any chronic alcoholics or drug addicts ?
No doubt.
At the end of the day there are 2 things that help people with addiction more than anything else. 1) A social support group/network to assist in the journey and 2) something to invest your time, energy and thoughts in to fill in the gap that the removal of your personal addiction from your life is likely to leave.
Any group.... including AA..... will offer the above. I have known people who have given up their addiction (again mainly alcohol) by joining a football club. The team offered the social support and the sport itself offered the vacuum filler to fill the gap in their lives.
It _could_ be. The question is _is it_? And as I say above about the football club.... there is no sign whatsoever to me that it is both. AA is just offering the two things that I think are actually helpful to over come addiction. The rest is just filler and theistic marketing.
I think any proponent of AA and 12 steps will be hard pushed to find anything of any efficacy in AA or the 12 steps that it actually offers alcoholics that a football club (for example) could not offer just as well.
Then perhaps a good first step to get over your feeling of nausea is to stop over reacting to what people here are saying. Much, if not most, of what is being said here is not "disparaging" at all. No, it is more a call to have programmes like AA evaluated in the same way(s) and methodologies as we evaluate any treatment or support plan.
The rest of your "By their understanding" rant in what follows in the rest of your post is a straw man that does not seem to match what people on the thread are ACTUALLY saying or espousing. Rather than address anything being said you appear to have made the choice to misrepresent it instead.[/QUOTE]
No offence meant by questioning you in that post (In fact I am a bit surprised you see it as you did).
Anyway back to the above - if I had posted what you have just posted ,just in reverse, you would tear it to shreds.
You are posting a lot of anecdotal second hand reports and expect them to carry credibility, yet you would not accept the reverse.
I will repeat I have never seen such practices in all my years attending AA.
As for the football club , if it was as easy as that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Again may I ask do you know any chronic alcoholics or addicts ? And if you do , do you think the local football club or chess club is going to help them ?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
gaynorvader wrote: »Yes, but probably not by themselves.
Ah, so that's where I've been going wrong!
I joined a tag rugby group from work. I used to go straight from work to the pub, have 2 pints, then go to 'training', then try to find some randomer to go for a few more pints with, or hook up with anyone else who happened to be out. If no-one was out, I'd go into a pub on my own.
I should have joined a football club instead!0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »Yes, but probably not by themselves.
Well if you had a friend who is a chronic alcoholic which would you prefer - the local football club and all that camaraderie or AA and all that 'religion'0 -
Ah, so that's where I've been going wrong!
I joined a tag rugby group from work. I used to go straight from work to the pub, have 2 pints, then go to 'training', then try to find some randomer to go for a few more pints with, or hook up with anyone else who happened to be out. If no-one was out, I'd go into a pub on my own.
I should have joined a football club instead!
What?! How did you infer that from what I said? I was saying combining your tag rugby and AA would be best and that tag rugby/football/etc are not enough by themselves, but need additional treatment.0 -
-
I will try to reply to everything you wrote here, but given you have made a mess of the QUOTE function I will ask forgiveness if I miss anything.I have been to 1000's of meetings in dozens of cities and countries and never,not once have I seen such a thing . But yet that will be dismissed as anecdotal - but that cuts both ways does it not ?
Its one anecdote against a group of them really, but I do not put much stock in anecdote either way. As I said, all I am doing is relaying what I have been told. I am not citing it as fact.
1000s of meetings however? That sounds like hyperbole and exaggeration to me. How many 1000s are we talking here? 2? 4? 6? 8? Even at two meetings a week it would take 20 years to go to 2000 meetings. Do you do anything BUT go to meetings in your life? Little wonder you have no time for drink. Perhaps it is not AA that is the cure, but investing so much time in something else that you simply have no more time to drink.It is listed by many secular outlets as a viable method in fighting alcoholism ,granted not the only one. But it is an endorsement nonetheless.
Argument from authority fallacy. So what if such places have it listed. WHO has it listed is of no interest to me. It is WHY they have it listed. Do they justify or explain their listing of it in any way?
Citing mere endorsement of it tells me literally nothing. I know people list it. I know some doctors and psychologist refer people on to it. The question is WHY. Do they do so for good reason, or because it simply is the go-to name in their heads?And also could I ask ,( I might be out of line here so no probs if you don't) do you know any chronic alcoholics or drug addicts ?
I do not tend to answer irrelevancies or personal questions about me. The above is both. Whether I know such people directly, or not, is simply irrelevant to the points I am making.(In fact I am a bit surprised you see it as you did).
Or that I saw it at all perhaps.As for the football club , if it was as easy as that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Why not? I see nothing to preclude such a discussion. Sometimes people do over complicate things that are easy and straight forward. The fact is I can not see a single thing, much less from anyone on this thread, that suggests AA has anything to offer _but_ the two things I have listed. And as I said there are many ways to obtain those two things.
If there is any difference you can discern really, I am all ears to hear it. Do you think AA offer anything at all, that you can show is actually effective or useful, EXCEPT for the two things I have already listed?
And I do not mean simply declaring something is important or useful.... like imagining some kind of "higher power" and submitting to it..... I mean mention something AND show that it is useful or effective or important somehow.
I do not believe you can because to do so you will have to start asking the kinds of questions that the vast majority of my posts on this thread have been lamenting the lack of anyone actually asking, let alone getting answered.0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »What?! How did you infer that from what I said? I was saying combining your tag rugby and AA would be best and that tag rugby/football/etc are not enough by themselves, but need additional treatment.
Apologies, I was in fact responding to nozz's claim that she knows people who gave up alcohol by joining a football club. Hadn't intended to quote you!0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I will try to reply to everything you wrote here, but given you have made a mess of the QUOTE function I will ask forgiveness if I miss anything.
Its one anecdote against a group of them really, but I do not put much stock in anecdote either way. As I said, all I am doing is relaying what I have been told. I am not citing it as fact.
1000s of meetings however? That sounds like hyperbole and exaggeration to me. How many 1000s are we talking here? 2? 4? 6? 8? Even at two meetings a week it would take 20 years to go to 2000 meetings. Do you do anything BUT go to meetings in your life? Little wonder you have no time for drink. Perhaps it is not AA that is the cure, but investing so much time in something else that you simply have no more time to drink.
Argument from authority fallacy. So what if such places have it listed. WHO has it listed is of no interest to me. It is WHY they have it listed. Do they justify or explain their listing of it in any way?
Citing mere endorsement of it tells me literally nothing. I know people list it. I know some doctors and psychologist refer people on to it. The question is WHY. Do they do so for good reason, or because it simply is the go-to name in their heads?
I do not tend to answer irrelevancies or personal questions about me. The above is both. Whether I know such people directly, or not, is simply irrelevant to the points I am making.
Or that I saw it at all perhaps.
Why not? I see nothing to preclude such a discussion. Sometimes people do over complicate things that are easy and straight forward. The fact is I can not see a single thing, much less from anyone on this thread, that suggests AA has anything to offer _but_ the two things I have listed. And as I said there are many ways to obtain those two things.
If there is any difference you can discern really, I am all ears to hear it. Do you think AA offer anything at all, that you can show is actually effective or useful, EXCEPT for the two things I have already listed?
And I do not mean simply declaring something is important or useful.... like imagining some kind of "higher power" and submitting to it..... I mean mention something AND show that it is useful or effective or important somehow.
I do not believe you can because to do so you will have to start asking the kinds of questions that the vast majority of my posts on this thread have been lamenting the lack of anyone actually asking, let alone getting answered.
I think the quote function is kaput as I am seeing the same on your posts, but no matter the sense is coming through.
I am 35 five years sober so I can assure you I have been to that many meetings, In the early years sometimes every day ,even occasionally twice a day. Much ,much less these days.It is really not that hard as they start at 8.30 and one is home by 10. A lot less time that it takes to get pissed .
And no I did not hope you would miss that comment, a bit surprised you would even think that. For two reasons - for anyone that follows your posts it is obvious you read every post, and secondly I have been open and honest all along so why would I deviate now ? But no matter.
On the personal experience being irrelevant - at some level it all comes down to such experience, all that data collected and aggregated and analysed is just the summation of individual testimony. I am not saying one individual account have any relevance to public policy but you cannot be blind to it either . The same would apply to the Simon Community or Shelter - some knowledge or experience of those needing those services must be useful.It is no coincidence that large numbers working in this field are ex alcoholic/addicts
I have provided data showing the efficacy of AA and now you ask why doctors etc list it, and you suggest maybe it is their go to name- have you anything to support that.
Again I would reiterate I am not saying AA is the only way , or cannot be used in conjunction with other methods- as is usually the case.
But I don't think we will agree on this , we are just coming at it from such different lived experience.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »{...}
If there is any difference you can discern really, I am all ears to hear it. Do you think AA offer anything at all, that you can show is actually effective or useful, EXCEPT for the two things I have already listed?
{...}
The main differences, as I see them, are that AA is religious and AA is focused on not drinking, whereas in your local sports club, you're quite likely to come under a bit of peer pressure to head to the pub after a game/training session. The second one definitely being the more important difference.
I do think that other activities help immensely though, and I'm basing this purely on my own experiences and a small pinch of reasoning/logic.0 -
Advertisement
-
gaynorvader wrote: »The main differences, as I see them, are that AA is religious and AA is focused on not drinking, whereas in your local sports club, you're quite likely to come under a bit of peer pressure to head to the pub after a game/training session. The second one definitely being the more important difference.
I do think that other activities help immensely though, and I'm basing this purely on my own experiences and a small pinch of reasoning/logic.
This shows the huge gap in understanding each others views - AA is religious to those that are religious, and is not to those that are not. I can only say that so many times.
And AA has no interest in not drinking per se, it is about understanding why a person drank and counteracting those issues. Drink is just the symptom of deeper issues.
It is not just about stopping drinking, it is about understanding why a person feels the need to drink, providing the support and tools to help overcome those needs and providing a methodology to live a sober life content in that choice.
Who wants to live a life where drink or drugs dominates your life whether you are on them or off them ?0
Advertisement