Holy Jesus! A Nihilist Converts... [Archive]

View Full Version : Holy Jesus! A Nihilist Converts...

Shadow

4th March 2007, 04:51 PM

athon

4th March 2007, 05:06 PM

Wow. I don't know where to begin. On one hand, congratulations on finding a way to overturn the key problems in your life. On the other hand...I don't know if I can agree that creating a fictitious pantheon to 'not' believe in is mentally healthy.

To what extent does this fictitious family of deities help? For instance, I can understand to some extent the depression brought on by alcohol from two fronts; one, my father was an alcoholic and I experienced first hand his emotional problems, and two, I suffer periodically from depressive episodes. Regarding the latter, I know the feeling of seeing the world as a bleak, grey place where nothing has significant meaning. My usually beneficial existential view becomes a weapon which my depressive nature uses against me. During these moments, I feel very nihilistic. However, it is within this that I rationalise that life itself is its own purpose. Topping myself makes as little sense, so I might as well get up and do something, because doing nothing is not an option. (complicated mind games I play with myself just to get out of bed some mornings...)

Sometimes I feel a compulsion to distance myself from my own character, to almost pretend I'm somebody else, which results from the sense of self-loathing I have during such episodes. Hence creating fiction to deal with reality might be something I do. But I do know it is not healthy, even though at the time it helps me mentally cope somewhat better.

So while I can understand the need to address the nihilism, I don't know how healthy it is in the long run to believe that you need to believe in some supernatural 'companions'. It feels as if you might run into problems with that in the future, although that is far from an expert opinion.

Good luck and hang in there. I hope people here can offer some more helpful advice.

Athon

qayak

4th March 2007, 05:11 PM

Magyar

4th March 2007, 05:18 PM

I've found that the most ardent xians were x drug addicts and junkies.
They traded in one addiction which was Obviously destructive to one that is less obvious, but still is.

Apathia

4th March 2007, 05:29 PM

I am an alcoholic, a drug addict and a nihilist. Well, I got tired of waking up in gutters at five in the morning and not remembering what happened 10 minutes ago so I decided to start going to A.A.

Now my biggest problem with that is that 11 out of 12 step to recover revolves around God. I did not just say there was no god, I said F*** god and those that find it necessary to believe in one.

I thought I was doomed to my miserable existence. I hated everyone and I was literally scared to death of myself. Now after being in the AA program, I still do not believe in any god but I do believe in the necessity to do so. That put me in a tough spot...so I decided that if I had to believe in a god to recover I would have to believe in my god. More or less a group of gods I had to make up for the purpose of recovering & living life.

Now, I am a former nihilist that has become a religious fanatic for spirituality. The need to believe in something other than just "me" is the only way I have found the power to control my life in a productive & non-destructive manner.

I am now a spiritual person worshiping gods that I believe are not there and do not care about me, yet having them makes my life controllable. Praying to fictional beings I created and know that I created somehow makes me happy. I don't know if its a form of multiple personality disorder to please my unhappiness & misery. I don't know if its the human nature of logical thought to believe in something more than just "me". Maybe it is a need to release my hate & fear to a being that will not judge me because it cannot respond. I do not know for sure and I cannot say if any of these reasons are right. I can say that making up gods & praying to them has made me happy, regardless if whether I believe in them or not.

Your natural being is more than the fiction your mind calls your ego or self.
Sometimes ritual and imagery help integrate those aspects of your being thinking can't get at.

Your danger is replacing one addiction with another; becoming addicted to your tools.

Even after I could no longer believe in a Theistic God, I continued to speak to "No One At All." I kept my place where I could express my thoughts and feelings that were to private to me to share with others. It still is a useful exercise for me to speak things out when I'm emotionnaly distraught. And since this empty God doesn't have any thoughts, opinions, or judgements about what I say, I'm free to find what is in my heart.

The aim though, is an integration of yourself that no longer requires these Gods. But don't sweat it. All of us have our addictions and function well if we can make of them harmless and manageable ones.

Ichneumonwasp

4th March 2007, 05:49 PM

The need to believe in something other than just "me" is the only way I have found the power to control my life in a productive & non-destructive manner.

Good. Welcome to the path. I wonder how you could have not believed in something greater than you. Next step is to realize that, properly speaking, there is no you. I'm happy to hear that you are on the road to recovery. Keep it up.

Cosmo

4th March 2007, 05:55 PM

ChristineR

4th March 2007, 06:11 PM

What gayak said. AA is a support group. In order to have the experience of fitting into the group you need to go through the vaguely religious stuff.

Try watching Cosmos and thinking about the infinite universe.

Jekyll

5th March 2007, 04:38 AM

I am now a spiritual person worshiping gods that I believe are not there and do not care about me, yet having them makes my life controllable. Praying to fictional beings I created and know that I created somehow makes me happy. I don't know if its a form of multiple personality disorder to please my unhappiness & misery. I don't know if its the human nature of logical thought to believe in something more than just "me". Maybe it is a need to release my hate & fear to a being that will not judge me because it cannot respond. I do not know for sure and I cannot say if any of these reasons are right. I can say that making up gods & praying to them has made me happy, regardless if whether I believe in them or not.

Have you thought about having a look at Jungian Archetypes? The idea has been around long enough that I'm sure some of the psychotherapists have explanations for why they find the ideas useful even if the archetypes don't actually exist in any 'real' sense.

slingblade

5th March 2007, 12:57 PM

Even after I could no longer believe in a Theistic God, I continued to speak to "No One At All." I kept my place where I could express my thoughts and feelings that were to private to me to share with others. It still is a useful exercise for me to speak things out when I'm emotionnaly distraught. And since this empty God doesn't have any thoughts, opinions, or judgements about what I say, I'm free to find what is in my heart.

I do that. I'm fully aware no one is there and that I'm just talking out loud, but it helps to say it out loud sometimes. Helps to get it out of the head where it just goes round and round.....

I've also become aware, through this, that when I say "Aw, I don't care," it means I care very much. And yet, I can't stop saying it when I'm upset.

Oh, well. I don't care.

Shadow

5th March 2007, 05:49 PM

Not to rain on anyone's parade but my understanding is that the success rate for those in AA is exactly the same as for those who go it alone.

AA may lead you to believe you need a god to recover but statistics says different.

In short, NO that is certain. Alcoholics produce chemicals in their brains that produce addiction and cravings. Very few true alcoholics can go it alone. Some may become dry for a short period but many relapse and go back to their old ways.

Show me "statistics" where those who do not believe in a higher power greater than themselves "recover". As of right now I spend 8 hours a day 4 meetings a day and for the past 30 days listening to people talking about relapse after relapse saying that they could never get past the 2nd & 3rd steps.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God, as we understood Him.

Recovering isn't just about not drinking it is about not wanting to drink and becoming generally a good person. Its greatly needed brain washing, cleaning up the mess I became. Those who have done all the steps and continue their work in the program no longer desire to drink, even in cases of celebration & remorse. It is about removing the desire & obsession.

Understand AA is not cult to be debunked, it does not recruit nor promote and clearly states that in the 12 traditions.

12 traditions:

1. Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.
2. For our group purpose, there is but one ultimate authority--a loving God as he may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
3. The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.
4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups of A.A. as a whole.
5. Each group has but one primary purpose--to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers.
6. An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.
7. Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.
8. Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever nonprofessional, but our service centers may employ special workers.
9. A.A., as such, ought never be organized; but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve.
10. Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.
11. Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films.
12. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.

It is only for those who want it.

I can swear on my very life that there is absolutely no way I could recover on my own. I tried to stop drinking on my own but for an alcoholic you cannot not drink.
I swore after loosing my job, I swore after loosing my house, I swore after loosing my car, I swore after loosing my credit, I swore after loosing girlfriend after girlfriend, I swore after I woke up in a gutter, and I swore after being dragged out of a bar and sent to live with my dad. No promise & no person could stop my madness and I had nothing left to loose but my life. I wanted nothing more than to stop drinking but I could not.

Alcoholics do not put a drink down one day and say I am done and I do not need anybody or anything to stop drinking and live happy lives. They keep drinking because drinking is the only thing they want and they have left.

Misinforming and claiming that "going it alone" will give you the same success rate as the AA program is more malicious than arson to a children's hospital. If every person with a DWI and DUI had the option to "go it alone" rather than a proven working program of AA the results would be horrific. How many of those alcoholics would drink again and then kill themselves or another human being through drunk driving?

AA does not "lead you to believe you need a god to recover" it blatantly tells you that without a "higher power" (Not always god, some people use the AA group itself as the higher power) you cannot recover.

AA teaches you that you do not need to be alone (I am not talking about God). It is a community of alcoholics whose purpose is to help you stay sober and to keep you living.

Frankly, there are no statistics that prove you right. AA is not the Bible that can be picked apart as woo. It works; it has been proven with countless doctors & testimony. Currently there are over 107,000 groups self-supporting through inside donations and volunteer work. Any success rate at all is better than none at all. Prove a better system that works and I swear on my life I will follow it.

If anything AA is unorganized religion there is no absolute god, and the only rule to be a member is a desire to stop drinking. The only belief is in a higher power that could restore us to sanity. It could be the universe, a coffee cup, your dead mother, the AA group itself, or a god you make up and designate. New people come and go daily like church however it is not for those that need it but only for those that want it.

Do not confuse your apparent hate of religion with AA being a cult. People hope that you will not leave the program to go out drinking again but no one will ever stop you. Like I mentioned before misinforming and claiming that "going it alone" will give you the same success rate as the AA program is more malicious than arson to a children's hospital.
Research before you type.

Shadow

5th March 2007, 06:06 PM

I've found that the most ardent xians were x drug addicts and junkies.
They traded in one addiction which was Obviously destructive to one that is less obvious, but still is.

...explain.

Is it faith or those who control it that corrupts it. Is it god or man who decides what is right. I swear on my life that every page of every relgious text was written by man. Blame not faith but the corrupt leaders who claim to rule such faiths. Its not the faith, its the establishment.
I am still a nihlist, yet I pray.

Shadow

5th March 2007, 06:10 PM

Your danger is replacing one addiction with another; becoming addicted to your tools.
...
All of us have our addictions and function well if we can make of them harmless and manageable ones.
If I have to pray to fictional gods to keep from waking up in gutters and from killing people through drunk driving then so be it.

Shadow

5th March 2007, 06:11 PM

This really makes no sense to me. :confused:
Ya... me either.

Shadow

5th March 2007, 06:13 PM

Have you thought about having a look at Jungian Archetypes? The idea has been around long enough that I'm sure some of the psychotherapists have explanations for why they find the ideas useful even if the archetypes don't actually exist in any 'real' sense.
Not yet, but it sounds interesting.

Moochie

5th March 2007, 06:16 PM

Whatever gets you through the night...

M.

Apathia

5th March 2007, 07:13 PM

If I have to pray to fictional gods to keep from waking up in gutters and from killing people through drunk driving then so be it.

And praise whatever gods you create that so help you!

BTW along with Jung look into Joseph Campbell.

qayak

5th March 2007, 07:31 PM

Kopji

5th March 2007, 07:48 PM

considering all the lives and fortunes that have been given in sacrifice to various gods and their demands of followers, they could at least have the decency to be real

Apathia

5th March 2007, 07:56 PM

considering all the lives and fortunes that have been given in sacrifice to various gods and their demands of followers, they could at least have the decency to be real

That sounds like a new Ontological Argument.

God is Decency.
It would be indecent of God to not exist.
God by definition must be decent and behave decently, therefore God exists.

Unfortuantely for our Christian friends this is non-applicable to Jehovah who hasn't quite been a decent fellow.

Gayak, thanks for that very infomative contribution. One size doesn't fit all.

Kopji

5th March 2007, 07:59 PM

That sounds like a new Ontological Argument.

God is Decency.
It would be indecent of God to not exist.
God by definition must be decent and behave decently, therefore God exists.

Unfortuantely for our Christian friends this is non-applicable to Jehovah who hasn't qute been a decent fellow.

Gayak, thanks for that very infomative contribution. One size doesn't fit all.

I specialize in circularity and fallacy as an instructional tool. :D
And darn it they are fun. Everyone needs a hobby...

Kopji

5th March 2007, 08:01 PM

An ontological argument would be something like: I can imagine God not existing, and since I can imagine it God must not exist.

Shadow

6th March 2007, 03:40 AM

Shadow,

The way you format your posts makes it impossible to respond to your points so I will address the main ones only.

First off, there are statistics on AA success rates and they are exactly the same as the rates for spontaneous remission. See here: http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

Are you serious, this is going to take me days.

Your only source of information is skewed and you misrepresent it. Let me remind you that quoting out of context is deemed unethical in a debate. This is something your source does quite often.

Your source reads more like a rant than an academic argument. Sniping quotes when deemed beneficial while ignoring the context of the message. Each sentence I read sounds more and more like the Enquirer or Star magazine rather than a credible source. Large chunks of information conveniently left out to skew the argument even more.

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html#Harvard_Mental (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html#Harvard_Mental)[/URL]

"And note that the Harvard Medical School says that the support of a good spouse is more important than that of a 12-Step group. But [URL="http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-otherwomen.html#divorce"]A.A. says just the opposite (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html): "Dump your spouse and marry the A.A. group (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters.html#Linda), because A.A. is The Only Way (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a1.html#ca_only_way)."
"I decided I must place this program above everything else, even my family, because if I did not maintain my sobriety I would lose my family anyway."
The Big Book, 3rd Edition -- Chapter B10, He Sold Himself Short, page 293.
And a rehash of the Big Book that is targeted at youths tells this story of an allegedly-successful recovery:
Even after she remarries, she doesn't lose sight of her priorities. She places God first and A.A. second. Her husband is never more than the third most important aspect of her life.
Big Book Unplugged; A Young Person's Guide to Alcoholics Anonymous, John R., page 107."

Is this seriously your source & way of debating? I could not believe what I was reading. Therefore, like any person reading an apparent rant I decided to look it up. Let me take great pleasure in putting into context these two quotes, rather than just the listing convenient parts for my argument.

The first quote comes from,

Alcoholics Anonymous
Personal Stories
Part I
Pioneers of A.A.
This group of ten stories shows that sobriety in A.A. can be lasting.

After page 164 the Big Book ends. There is not any more information on the steps or what you should follow. Every single page thereafter is personal experiences and stories of alcoholics that have recovered through the A.A. program. Its not doctrine that is "taught" to alcoholics, none of it says, "Dump your spouse and marry the A.A. group (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters.html#Linda), because A.A. is The Only Way (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a1.html#ca_only_way)."
First, your source is obviously ranting when quotes arise from thin air.
Secondly your source lists the page as 293 when its actually 264.
Thirdly, the full quote reads as follows:

"I made several decisions at that time. One of them was that I would try to get a group started in Chicago; the second was that I would have to return to Akron to attend meetings at least every two months until I did get a group started in Chicago; third, I decided I must place this program above everything else, even my family, because if I did not maintain my sobriety, I would lose my family anyway. If I did not maintain my sobriety, I would not have a job. If I did not maintain my sobriety, I would have no friends left. I had few enough at that time."

Well gosh darn it, it seems when you read the whole thing it takes on a completely different meaning then that of your "source". It appears AA does not say "Dump your spouse and marry the A.A. group (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters.html#Linda), because A.A. is The Only Way (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a1.html#ca_only_way)." It seems to be saying one of the pioneers of AA wanted to maintain his newfound sobriety.

Your source is clearly twisting quotes and using misrepresentation. This adds up to strike number 1. You are loosing credibility with this source.

The second quote comes from an abridged & interpreted version of the Big Book.

First context for this quote is originally from

Alcoholics Anonymous
Personal Stories
Part III
They Lost Nearly All
Those who believe their drinking to be hopeless may again find hope in these fifteen impressive tales.
pg.521

Secondly, let me quote the text that John R. was expanding on.

"I remarried in Alcoholics Anonymous, to a man who believes in A.A. the way I do. (I knew we were off to a good start when he didn't get angry that I stood him up to go on a Twelfth Step call.) We agreed to never be higher than third on each other's lists, with God always first and Alcoholics Anonymous second. He is my partner and my best friend. We both sponsor several people, and our house is filled with love and laughter. Our telephone never stops ringing. We share the joy of a common solution" pg.521 Alcoholics Anonymous

Thirdly, paired with the below quote it seems very far from the "Dump your spouse and marry the A.A. group (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters.html#Linda), because A.A. is The Only Way (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a1.html#ca_only_way)."

"Even after she remarries, she doesn't lose sight of her priorities. She places God first and A.A. second. Her husband is never more than the third most important aspect of her life.
Big Book Unplugged; A Young Person's Guide to Alcoholics Anonymous, John R., page 107."

Your source is clearly twisting quotes and using misrepresentation. This adds up to strike number 2. You have almost lost your credibility.

After the pages and pages, I have read in the massive rant your source claims to be a book. I list two facts as strike number 3 against your sources credibility.

Their opening quote.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation-HERBERT SPENCER

...Nevertheless, that quote sounds like good advice. So let's really, honestly, investigate Alcoholics Anonymous, without rejecting criticism of A.A. before investigation of all of the facts..."
http://www.orange-papers.org/ (http://www.orange-papers.org/)

Along with the very first paragraph of the Introduction.

"These essays, which have ended up pretty much making up a whole book, began as my attempt to clarify my own thinking about A.A., and to explain to others why I felt that there was something wrong with people trying to shove Alcoholics Anonymous on patients. I had signed up for a course of outpatient "alcoholism treatment", but ended up getting something more like "Introduction to Cult Religion 101," where most of the "course of treatment" consisted of compulsory attendance of Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous 12-Step meetings, and "group therapy" sessions where xeroxed copies of A.A. and N.A. literature was handed out and discussed by a 12-Step true-believer group leader, someone who just assumed that of course everyone who recovers will do it at 12-Step meetings..."
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-intro.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-intro.html)

Good lord I wish you would have used the bible as your source of facts. At least then, I could find the information to rebuttal with easily. Trying to debunk someone with hundreds of pages of skewed information is troublesome.

I will continue as much as I can later but it is the ravings of someone who did not go though the AA program but rather a court ordered rehab. Let me tell you why with another quote from your source and two AA traditions.

"I began to get the funny feeling that there was something wrong, that something didn't quite add up right. For instance, in a "group therapy" session, I mentioned the fact that a dozen years earlier, I had quit drinking, all on my own, and stayed quit for over three years. The counselor declared that I had not had a period of "recovery," that I had only been "abstaining," because "I had not been dealing with any issues." The counselor..."

Twelve Traditions
8.) Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever non-professional. We define professionalism as the occupation of counseling alcoholics for fees or hire. But we may employ alcoholics where they are going to perform those services for which we may otherwise have to engage nonalcoholic. Such special services may be well recompensed. But our usual A.A. "12th Step" work is never to be paid for.

9.) Each A.A. group needs the least possible organization. Rotating leadership is the best. The small group may elect its Secretary, the large group its Rotating Committee, and the groups of a large Metropolitan area their Central or Intergroup Committee, which often employs a full-time Secretary. The trustees of the General Service Board are, in effect, our A.A. General Service Committee. They are the custodians of our A.A. Tradition and the receivers of voluntary A.A. contributions by which we maintain our A.A. General Service Office at New York. They are authorized by the groups to handle our over-all public relations and they guarantee the integrity of our principle newspaper, "The A.A. Grapevine." All such representatives are to be guided in the spirit of service, for true leaders in A.A. are but trusted and experienced servants of the whole. They derive no real authority from their titles; they do not govern. Universal respect is the key to their usefulness.

http://www.area68district2.com/The%20Twelve%20Traditions%20Long%20Form.htm (http://www.area68district2.com/The%20Twelve%20Traditions%20Long%20Form.htm)

As an alcoholic it is clear your source was not an alcoholic. Its a disease you can't "will it" to go away. It will never go away. If I can stay sober for 30 years, then take just one drink, immediately I will get cravings & become obsessed for more alcohol. Whether I act upon those desires is my choice, but I will forever be an alcoholic.

FYI:
Your source even has a section dedicated to propaganda & debating techniques. Seriously, your source has lost all crediability, yet now understand why you believe it all as fact.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html)

There is no misinformation on my part. The success rate for AA is less than 5%. Some people will be more successful with AA but the same number will be equally as successful without it. The question arises: Is it the same people who would be successful no matter which way they went?

see above

Then AA is blatantly wrong. There is no higher power when it comes to my life, than me. I am the only one that can change my behaviour, you are the only one that can change yours.

You are not an alcoholic. Alcoholism is the loss in choice to drink.

I never said anyone had to go it alone. I said they would be just as successful if they did.

see above

Are you suggesting that alcoholics are insane? I know many but I do not know one that would be diagnosed as insane. A higher power cannot keep you sane anyway. No one can walk into an asylum and tell a patient to stop being insane and expect that to work.

I'm not suggesting it, alcoholics are insane. Driven mad through alcoholism.
Let me explain,
I quit my job making $56,000 a year at 19 year-old. Why? because it was cutting into my drinking time, is that sane thinking?
I lost my house. Why? because I was to busy drinking to get a job, is that sane thinking?
I lost my girlfriends. Why? because I didn't want to be with them unless they would meet me at the bar, is that sane thinking?
I lost my car. Why? because I wrecked it because I was drunk driving is that sane thinking?
I lost my credit. Why? because I maxed out my credit cards at the bar and couldn't pay them, was that sane thinking?
I woke up frequently in a daze in gutters & bars. Why? I was unwilling to leave and get a good night rest in a bed because I would rather drink, is that sane thinking?
With nothing left to loose but my life I chose to continue drinking, I started selling drugs to pay my bar tab, was that sane thinking?

Nothing would have changed had I not been dragged out of a bar and sent to live with my dad. Only after I realized that I had become like my alcholic Mom & Dad did I decide to go to AA. Even after being in AA all I want to do right now is get drunk. After seeing all the damage I have done to my life through drinking, I still desire to do it. Its like playing Russian Roulette with yourself. There is nothing to win and its just a matter of time but your gonna pull the trigger again and again and again, why? because I'm insane. Your ignorance is becoming annoying.

Okay, so what does it take to make something up and then make yourself believe it is true? How can you deceive yourself that easily?

I don't believe its true or there, I just pray to it. You never had imaginary friends did you?

I do not hate religion. I get annoyed with people who believe, and teach others to believe, in make believe entities. There is not too much in this world that I hate. I also don't think AA is a cult. I just don't think it is very successful. I do think that it could maybe be successful, if people knew the truth about it. Realizing that something doesn't work and changing it to something that does, would be a huge step.

Be weary of your sources you choose to cite. They would argue otherwise.
Its one of many programs that do work however it is for those that want it...not those court ordered through DUI charges.

I would suggest you take your own advice. Your ideas come right out of the AA book. I know, I have read it. That book is based on people making things up as they went along and never having actually checked to see if it were true.

It was based on people making things up as they went along...if your new to it thats how books are written. They come up with ideas and then write them, later editing them.
Checking to see if what was true? Truth in what?

After checking your source, I suggest again research before you type.

Telling someone that the only way they can succeed is to lay the responsibility at the feet of a higher power is a recipe for failure. Isn't it better to tell people that they are the only ones who can change their actions and, no matter how hard it is to hear, they will not recover until they take responsibility and decide to change their behaviour. Truth is always more successful than make believe.

No its not.

Besides, the results can't be any worse than they already are. Perhaps an infusion of facts will help that.
Ha, say that when a AA drop-out plows into you. Try seriously researching.

Jekyll

6th March 2007, 04:45 AM

Shadow, do you have any figures showing the effectiveness of of AA over and above other treatment methods or no intervention?

It's numbers which are likely to convince people on here, rather than these back and forth arguments.

qayak

6th March 2007, 08:28 AM

Your only source of information is skewed and you misrepresent it.

And your AA book is not skewed? The results reported by AA are wrong for the exact reasons illustrated in the article. The only numbers available suggest a success rate exactly the same as going it alone.

Your post has done nothing to change this. More rhetoric won't help your cause, some facts would.

qayak

6th March 2007, 07:39 PM

Effectiveness of AA and 12 step programs

http://www.morerevealed.com/books/coc/chapter7.htm

strathmeyer

6th March 2007, 08:09 PM

Are you serious, this is going to take me days.

Yes, we are serious. Isn't lying to alcoholics about what their best road to recovery would be wrong? If AA has a positive success rate, why don't they advertise this? Why isn't it commonly known that if you are an alcoholic the best thing for you to do is to join AA? Why don't the numbers say that? Until you can answer these simple, basic questions I'm not going to be able to get past the first page of any of your posts.

Shadow

6th March 2007, 10:20 PM

Yes, we are serious. Isn't lying to alcoholics about what their best road to recovery would be wrong? If AA has a positive success rate, why don't they advertise this?

"11.) Our relations with the general public should be characterized by personal anonymity. We think A.A. ought to avoid sensational advertising. Our names and pictures as A.A. members ought not be broadcast, filmed, or publicly printed. Our public relations should be guided by the principle of attraction rather than promotion. There is never need to praise ourselves. We feel it better to let our friends recommend us."
http://www.aa-louisiana.org/tradlong.htm

If AA promoted it could quickly become a cult with the soul purpose of sucking in non-alcoholics and telling them to "donate" money. Other traditions explain the importance of not making AA professional.

"8.) Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever non-professional. We define professionalism as the occupation of counseling alcoholics for fees or hire. But we may employ alcoholics where they are going to perform those services for which we may otherwise have to engage nonalcoholics. Such special services may be well recompensed. But our usual A.A. "12th Step" work is never to be paid for"

"7.) The A.A. groups themselves ought to be fully supported by the voluntary contributions of their own members. We think that each group should soon achieve this ideal; that any public solicitation of funds using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous is highly dangerous, whether by groups, clubs, hospitals, or other outside agencies; that acceptance of large gifts from any source, or of contributions carrying any obligation whatever, is unwise. Then too, we view with much concern those A.A. treasuries which continue, beyond prudent reserves, to accumulate funds for no stated A.A. purpose. Experience has often warned us that nothing can so surely destroy our spiritual heritage as futile disputes over property, money, and authority."

Why isn't it commonly known that if you are an alcoholic the best thing for you to do is to join AA?

It is commonly known that if you are an alcoholic the best thing for you to do is to join AA. AA is common knowledge to almost everyone. If you think otherwise prove it.

As an alcoholic I know. I went to AA because I commonly knew it was the best thing to do.

Why don't the numbers say that?

"This longitudinal study of 55 Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) participants found that even chronic alcohol abusers viewed alcoholics negatively, in keeping with normative understandings."
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(td2syg45zgjtdj3g3xln5c55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,3,4;journal,30,47;linkingpublicationr esults,1:102437,1

"Most of us have been unwilling to admit we were real alcoholics. No person likes to think he is bodily and mentally different from his fellows." [Big Book page 30, line 1]

"...You must realize the alcoholic is desperate to get more and more alcohol, and he or she may lie, cheat and steal in order to do so.

Very simply, an alcoholic is a person whose life is controlled by alcohol. They are sick.

Question: If the alcoholic is sick why doesn't he or she just go to the hospital?

Because in the early stages of alcoholism, the alcoholic does not appear sick, in pain, or visibly abnormal. Alcoholics do not comprehend that they are about to become a very sick person, and neither do the people around them.

By the time an alcoholic is in the late stage, he or she is often irrational, deluded, and unable to understand what has happened. The alcoholic is simply not aware of what is going on in his or her body and is in a complete state of denial.

Being an alcoholic is not a curse. The alcoholic is a sick person and should be treated as one. Alcoholics are born with a hereditary, genetic predisposition to addiction having to do with brain chemistry. Alcoholics need to ingest alcohol before the addiction takes hold. Alcoholism is a progressive disease, and without treatment it only gets worse."

http://www.articlecity.com/articles/health/article_6227.shtml

Until you can answer these simple, basic questions I'm not going to be able to get past the first page of any of your posts.

Read away.

The Atheist

7th March 2007, 02:27 AM

Shadow

7th March 2007, 02:56 AM

And your AA book is not skewed? The results reported by AA are wrong for the exact reasons illustrated in the article.

"If success is defined as one-year’s sobriety, on the face of it this 95% dropout rate gives AA a maximum success rate of only 5%"

http://www.morerevealed.com/books/coc/chapter7.htm (http://www.morerevealed.com/books/coc/chapter7.htm)

One-year of sobriety does not define any program as successful. There is no "cure" for alcoholism, once an alcoholic always an alcoholic. Now let us continue to read the rest of paragraph.

"Of course, many of the 95% who drop out within the first year are probably “repeaters” who have previously investigated AA, and this would increase the apparent AA success rate; but at least for the present there is no way to know what percentage of the dropouts are repeaters. Additionally, at least some of the 95% who drop out of AA during their first year do manage to sober up; but to date there’s no way to know what their numbers are. As well, it seems quite probable that most of those who drop out early in the program do so because they dislike and disagree with AA, so it could be argued that most of them who overcome their drinking problems do so in spite of, not because of, AA. Finally, at least some curiosity seekers and relatives of alcohol abusers show up at meetings, and this would further increase the apparent AA success rate. But to date, there are no reliable figures on what percentage of those who “walk through the door” fit those categories—though my personal estimate, and that of researcher/author Vince Fox, is that no more than 10% of new faces at AA meetings belong to relatives or curiosity seekers"

http://www.morerevealed.com/books/coc/chapter7.htm (http://www.morerevealed.com/books/coc/chapter7.htm)

As I said before

Frankly, there are no statistics that prove you right.

Let me shed light on why so many newcomers appear to have quit the program.

"...Approximately one million Americans per year enter treatment for drug or alcohol problems, and 93% of all facilities (both in-patient and out-patient) utilize a twelve-step approach to treatment. As the availability and reputation of twelve-step treatment has grown, courts have increasingly looked to both AA and treatment facilities as alternatives to incarceration for persons convicted of alcohol related offenses. The treatment-in-lieu-of-incarceration began in the 1960s and early 1970s with laws and practices designed to treat addiction as the perceived root cause of criminal conduct. The modern result of these laws and practices is a sometimes informal, but highly influential, network of court officials, attorneys, prosecutors, and treatment agencies focused on diverting criminal defendants into chemical dependence treatment. In 1995 it was estimated that 46% of persons entering treatment for alcoholism were court-ordered, and AA surveys indicate 16% of its members attended pursuant to a court order."
http://www.msu.edu/~msujml/dehn.pdf (http://www.msu.edu/~msujml/dehn.pdf)

s.) One question which arises from this is what percentage of AA’s members are now “real alcoholics”? A complicating factor is that at least some disturbed persons whose primary problems are almost certainly not alcohol related attend AA because it is an easy way to meet their social needs. A further complicating factor is that a very high percentage of AA’s current members, almost certainly at least a third, and probably more than 40%, are coerced into membership.
http://www.morerevealed.com/books/coc/chapter7.htm (http://www.morerevealed.com/books/coc/chapter7.htm)

For exact details & figures of what coerced means.

"I base this estimate on AA’s 1996 membership brochure. Because of the limitations of the data supplied by AA, my conclusions here must be somewhat tentative. I arrived at my figures as follows: 16% of those attending were openly coerced by the courts or penal system...Adding that 27% to the 16% who were outright coerced by the legal and penal systems yields a total of 43% of current AA members who belong to the organization primarily as a result of some type of coercion."
http://www.morerevealed.com/books/coc/chapter7.htm#sdendnote4sym

If 46% of new members are court-ordered than it appears that after their required time was served in the program that most would leave.

Note: Not everyone attending a 12-step program is an alcoholic some are just heavy drinkers.

Let me explain the difference between an alcoholic & a heavy drinker. An exact definition of an alcoholic has finally been reached in recent years. Thus suggesting all former research should be re-tested with a now accurate description of the alcoholic. There is no more debating "are they just a heavy drinker?" or "are they an alcoholic?"
1. "THIQ is manufactured in the brain and only occurs in the brain of the alcoholic drinker. It is not manufactured in the brain of the normal social drinker of alcohol.
2. THIQ has been found to be highly addictive. It was tried in experimental use with animals during the Second World War when we were looking for a painkiller less addicting than morphine. THIQ was a pretty good pain killer but t couldn't be used on humans. It turned out to be much more addicting than morphine.
3. Experiments have shown that certain kinds of rats cannot be made to drink alcohol. Put in a cage with very weak solution of vodka and water., these rats refuse to touch it. They will literally thirst to death before the agree to drink alcohol. However, if you take the same kind of rat and put a minute quantity of THIQ into the rat's brain -- one quick injection -- the animal will immediately develop a preference for alcohol over water.
4. Studies done with monkeys, our close animal relative in medical terms, show the following:
A. Once the THIQ is injected into a monkey's brain, it stays there.
B. You can keep the monkey dry off alcohol for 7 years but brain studies
show that THIQ remains in place in the brain.."

http://www.qis.net/~truth/t_h_i_q_.htm (http://www.qis.net/~truth/t_h_i_q_.htm)

The only numbers available suggest a success rate exactly the same as going it alone.

With the definition of an alcoholic only recently being discovered the above statements and figures suggest that it is extremely difficult to determine the "success" rate of true alcoholics in AA.

Further, the 5% "success" rate originally presented does not dictate success. It cannot be determined who was & was not an alcoholic. With around 46% of people being court-ordered, an estimated 27% being coerced, about 10% being relatives or curiosity seekers, only 17% of newcomers to AA are willingly there. Note that the figures for drug addicts who attend AA rather than NA are unknown. It does occur, often with those under 18.

With only about 1/6th of newcomers wanting to be there, it is no surprise that so many leave within their first year. However, note that some of those that do leave also return later willingly.

Your 5% success rate is nothing more than a heavily skewed & misrepresented quote. The first source you listed was nothing more than raving conspiracy theories written out of spite against their "counselor".

"P.S.:
This is just too much:
I just learned (mid July 2002) that my former counselor, the one who was such a fanatic at shoving the 12-Step religion on us, the guy who actually inspired this entire Orange Papers project, just got arrested in a big dramatic take-down. They arrested him for two or three counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor -- very young minors, like children. And then there was a problem with kiddie porn on the Internet.
Can you believe it? The guy who felt qualified to lecture us about the need for "spirituality" and a "Higher Power" in our personal recovery programs was actually a child pornographer and a pedophile by night.
This whole "recovery movement" is just such a bizarre parade of crazies, lunatics, and losers. When will it ever end?
(And a little voice in my head says, "What else could you expect? They hire from within. The staff are all former patients. The crazies recruit the crazies. The inmates really are running the insane asylum.")
Update: 20 September 2003:
My former 12-Step counselor was convicted on all counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor and child pornography, and is now serving time at the Snake River Correctional Facility at Ontario, Oregon (near the Oregon/Idaho border).
Update: 17 July 2004:
It just goes on and on. It turns out that the children that the 12-Stepper "counselor" was screwing were his own step-children. And then there was the cocaine. It seems that he had relapsed big time. The police found that he had cocaine stashed in his house, in his car, and even at his place of work -- the so-called "treatment center" that I went to. That's quite some drug and alcohol counselor.
The State Health Plan really got their moneys-worth when they paid that clinic to counsel the alcoholics and drug addicts, didn't they?
And can you believe that the clinic is still in business, still "helping" alcoholics and addicts, still poking the addicts with acupuncture needles and still selling the same B.S.?"
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-intro.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-intro.html)

Your post has done nothing to change this. More rhetoric won't help your cause, some facts would.

You claimed it, and your first source was literally laughable. However, your second was actually quite helpful and appreciated.

andyandy

7th March 2007, 04:53 AM

First and most importantly, congratulations for getting off the booze and dope.

I have no doubt that many addicts need a power greater than the pull of the drugs and regardless of whatever statistics say about whose way is better way, the facts are plain - AA DOES have success at keeping people clean and sober. Who gives a rat's arse about how many gods you worship if it keeps you going.

The important things from here are to get your life back on some kind of track, and try to rejoin the human race. Get a job, live a life and stay clean. If, in 10 years' time you're still clean, then you can worry about having a critical look at your beliefs.

I like the idea of making gods to suit your purpose - people have been doing that for 10,000 years or so, so it's nothing new.

i largely agree with this sentiment - religion is a very powerful means of delivering top down control to an individual level - and this has the capacity to be exploited for positive benefit such as in the case of individuals who require individual control within their lives.....In this case "God" is no more than an enabling mechanism, a vehicle for that control. Both Luke T and Dynamic write very eloquently on this subject - and changed my own perspective of the role of "God" within the AA. I'll try to dig out an old thread....here we go;

AA for dummies
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63880

and the provacatively titled "why is God in rehab?"
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64025

well worth a read.

Moochie

7th March 2007, 11:26 AM

Are you serious, this is going to take me days.

<snip>

Ha, say that when a AA drop-out plows into you. Try seriously researching.

Geeze, Shadow, give us a break!

The stats about AA's "success" rate I've seen before -- they are apparently true. Taken together, the very poor stats, coupled with the "higher power" BS, would seem to indicate that AA are a mob any self-respecting skeptic and alcoholic would do well to steer clear of.

M.

andyandy

7th March 2007, 01:41 PM

The stats about AA's "success" rate I've seen before -- they are apparently true. Taken together, the very poor stats, coupled with the "higher power" BS, would seem to indicate that AA are a mob any self-respecting skeptic and alcoholic would do well to steer clear of.

M.

yes! You should remain an alcoholic - far better than believing in a higher power! :D

Shadow

7th March 2007, 02:08 PM

The stats about AA's "success" rate I've seen before -- they are apparently true.

As I pointed, out, very obviously above, its misrepresentation. The 5% "success" is defined as newcomers never leaving the program within their first year experiencing it. There is no statistics of whether they sober up from experiencing the program or that later they decide to come back. Its very well known that all addicts are infamous for relapsing and going back to their drug of choice.

With 93% of all treatments facilities using twelve-step programs and only about 17% of newcomers willingly walking in to the program one could expect that the other 83% forced their would leave and thus relapse.

Along with this, almost every statistic regarding the alcoholic is inaccurate. Only recently within the last decade has the alcoholic be medically differentiated from the heavy drinker.
http://www.qis.net/~truth/t_h_i_q_.htm (http://www.qis.net/~truth/t_h_i_q_.htm)

Taken together, the very poor stats, coupled with the "higher power" BS, would seem to indicate that AA are a mob any self-respecting skeptic and alcoholic would do well to steer clear of.

M.

You apparently do not understand the alcoholic. There is no such thing as the self-respecting alcoholic much like there is no such thing as the self-respecting heroine junky. Through the production of THIQ in the alcoholic brain, alcohol actually becomes as addictive as heroine.

Makes sense why an alcoholic would deny treatment.
"I don't have a problem, its just alcohol. Its not like I'm shooting heroine." turns out that one beer was just like putting a needle in his arm.

Note that all alcoholics are skeptics and very few actually believe in god.

Yes, you are right though. The drunk in the gutter begging for change should steer clear of AA. They can always count on death for sobering them up.
"NO, wait! Don't get help they believe in God! If you join them there gonna make you believe in God too! Just wait it out in the streets, you'll be better off for sure. Die miserably and keep your dignity."
There aren't any other programs for desperate alcoholics.

The Atheist

7th March 2007, 02:36 PM

The drunk in the gutter begging for change should steer clear of AA. They can always count on death for sobering them up.

:bigclap

Meadmaker

7th March 2007, 07:29 PM

I haven't read the thread, but I really like the opening post!

qayak

7th March 2007, 07:58 PM

Along with this, almost every statistic regarding the alcoholic is inaccurate. Only recently within the last decade has the alcoholic be medically differentiated from the heavy drinker.

This pretty much means nothing. You have said that all our statistics are wrong but you have also said that yours are wrong as well.

The article you linked to sounds fishy to me. I haven't been able to find a single thing about T.H.I.Q. All pages from internet searches just refer back to the same two articles. All articles are identical and all are posted on alcoholic sites. Virginia Davis apparently did her studies in the 1950's but there is no information about her or her studies outside of the alcoholic website articles.

The 5% success rate is not a misrepresentation. You need to re-read the article. Are you aware that if you do not accept the definitions given for "success," then the rate falls to zero? Even those supporting AA, do not dispute the numbers. They even give explanations on how the number went from 100% when AA first started all the way down to the current 5% agreed on number. The explanations aren't very convincing.

Yes, you are right though. The drunk in the gutter begging for change should steer clear of AA. They can always count on death for sobering them up.
"NO, wait! Don't get help they believe in God! If you join them there gonna make you believe in God too! Just wait it out in the streets, you'll be better off for sure. Die miserably and keep your dignity."

The evidence doesn't support your outrageous contentions so now you are going to try unreasoned fear, in hopes of converting us.

There aren't any other programs for desperate alcoholics.

In this case it doesn't matter because AA has no effect anyway. One of the reports actually brought up a very good point. The author wondered at the effect hanging around with other alcoholics really had on someone trying to quit. They pointed out that immersing yourself in the culture of alcoholism, attending meetings where everyone talks about alcoholism and basing everything in your life around that culture would not be an effective method to quit drinking. At the very least it would delay your recovery greatly.

qayak

7th March 2007, 08:06 PM

This is just too much:
I just learned (mid July 2002) that my former counselor, the one who was such a fanatic at shoving the 12-Step religion on us, the guy who actually inspired this entire Orange Papers project, just got arrested in a big dramatic take-down. They arrested him for two or three counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor -- veryyoung minors,like children.

Can you explain why you felt it necessary to quote this particular section? It has nothing to do with the discussion.

Shadow

7th March 2007, 08:50 PM

Can you explain why you felt it necessary to quote this particular section? It has nothing to do with the discussion.
To remove validity from your first source as "unbiased".

qayak

7th March 2007, 08:54 PM

To remove validity from your first source as "unbiased".

What? Because he reported that the guy was a paedophile means he is biased against AA? That is pretty strange logic but if it works for you. . .

Besides, an argument must either be for or against something to have any merit. That he is biased against AA is of little consequence because his bias is based on sound logical arguments.

my_wan

7th March 2007, 10:11 PM

Effectiveness of AA and 12 step programs
http://www.morerevealed.com/books/coc/chapter7.htm

Look at the very first sentence;

“Of alcoholics who came to A.A. and really tried, 50 percent got sober at once and remained that way; 25 percent sobered up after some relapses . . .”

Look at the qualification "and really tried". That sounds like data mining before the numbers are ever even looked at to me!!! I know several alcoholics who went to AA got mad and left then after a few more years just quit without giving a reason.

Shadow,
I understand Archetypes and modern mythology very well. It is my main interest in studying skeptics and believers though it is a distant second to physics. I can cold read pictures better than most so called psychics can read live people. There is a degree of power over yourself that can be gained through a belief in a power greater than yourself but there is a better approach. The problem at the roots is a little like telling someone to put their nose in the corner and 'don't think about pink snakes'. Your god/s are really a mechanism for moving your thoughts outside of yourself and your own thinking. A far more potent and constructive approach would be to find a way you can volunteer your time to help others. In a quiet calm moment when the issue is right these words will resonate with you. By being afraid when you said ;

I thought I was doomed to my miserable existence. I hated everyone and I was literally scared to death of myself.

basically admitted an intuitive understanding. It's as if you convicted yourself because there was no god to do it for you. Yes I know others who have picked stupid issues to work for but it works to their benefit anyway. Even if they think I'm going to hell for not agreeing it's better for them than giving up the peace of mind it brings them and becoming what you were. Pick your issues carefully and work for them and the day will come when you can't even remember what it was like to be in the mental trap you were snared in. It's often said people essentially have no instincts. We do have an instinctual need for a sense of community and suffer greatly when we deny or lose that sense, even to self damnation. Lose your shadow and look into the eyes of the people around you.

largeprimenumber

7th March 2007, 10:38 PM

As far as we know, alleged pedophile. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

---
Shadow: Your entire position is based around accepting the disease model of addiction, which is still a controversial theory (by which I mean there are many scientists and much research supporting both sides of the issue). This is not saying that alcoholism/addiction is not an illness, but that addiction is caused by something abnormal.

The AA says it doesn't support or endorse religion or take sides on issues, but clearly, it does. The fact that you came out of AA believing in a higher power supports this. That and the fact that official AA literature mentions a monotheistic "God" constantly.

Furthermore, your staunch belief in the disease model of addiction and it's complementary fit with AA principles does nothing to strengthen the claim that AA is impartial.

Regardless, your distinction between "true alcholics" and "heavy drinkers" makes no difference to people who have a problem with drinking (aside from being offensive). I'm sure there are mere "heavy drinkers" out there who would also swear on their lives that they couldn't quit drinking alone. Who are you to dismiss them if we can't dismiss your own claim?
I can swear on my very life that there is absolutely no way I could recover on my own. I tried to stop drinking on my own but for an alcoholic you cannot not drink.
But what good is your oath after you plainly state how weak it is?
I swore after loosing my job, I swore after loosing my house, I swore after loosing my car, I swore after loosing my credit, I swore after loosing girlfriend after girlfriend, I swore after I woke up in a gutter, and I swore after being dragged out of a bar and sent to live with my dad. No promise & no person could stop my madness and I had nothing left to loose but my life. I wanted nothing more than to stop drinking but I could not.

Have you personally been tested for the presence of THIQ in your brain, or the gene that causes THIQ to be produced in acetaldehyde metabolism? If not, perhaps you should let go of the distinction between "true alcholics" and "heavy drinkers".

My main problem with AA that all it is just a support group, but acts as if it's something special. It's not. Sure, the organization purports to be self-governed and supported, but the 12 steps are the same 12 steps that have been there since its inception. There is no mechanism in place to change them. There is no need for the 12 steps or to believe in a higher power to benefit from a regular meeting with people who are in the same boat as you.

As for your own claims: that you still call your "gods" "fictional" and "nonexistent" but still pray to them makes your claims that you are a former nihilist and that you converted disingenuous.

So please, this is a skeptics forum, rhetoric doesn't fly here as well as reason.

Shadow

8th March 2007, 12:06 AM

This pretty much means nothing. You have said that all our statistics are wrong but you have also said that yours are wrong as well.

Yes, yours are wrong, mine are correct. My statistics do not cover the "success" rate of the AA program (as stated earlier it is extremely difficult to do so). There are no "definite statistics" of whether AA works for the true alcoholic.

My statistics state that 83% of all newcomers who attend a twelve-step process are forced to do so. This makes it even more unlikely to get actual results, as it is unknown which of these newcomers are alcoholics or non-alcoholics.

A program designed to save true alcoholics is not needed for the non-alcoholic. The non-alcoholic can drink normally and should.

The article you linked to sounds fishy to me. I haven't been able to find a single thing about T.H.I.Q. All pages from internet searches just refer back to the same two articles. All articles are identical and all are posted on alcoholic sites. Virginia Davis apparently did her studies in the 1950's but there is no information about her or her studies outside of the alcoholic website articles.

"Medical researchers have discovered that this chemical, tetrahydroisoquinolone, or THIQ, is present in the brains of alcoholics and persons who are dependent on depressants, sedative type drugs. Alcoholics have shown levels of this THIQ in their urine and, during autopsies, THIQ has been found in the brains of people who were alcoholics. THIQ is manufactured during the detoxification process of alcohol-a process that is different for alcoholics than for non-alcoholics."
http://www.sacsconsulting.com/book/chapter2.htm (http://www.sacsconsulting.com/book/chapter2.htm)

"The short story is: Rats were placed in one cage with water and an alcohol mixture. The rats chose to drink the water, completely ignoring the alcohol mixture.

The rats were taken out of the cage. THIQ was surgically implanted in their brains and they were placed back in the cage. Now they drank the alcohol, completely ignoring the pure water, until they died.

Such is the nature of our disease. Surgically implanting the THIQ completely bypasses all social factors so that whether or not we went to church, got potty trained, came from a split family, were sexually abused, or any other number of social factors matter not one whit. It is completely a matter of whether or not the brain manufactors THIQ. If it does. (and we drink at all) we become alcoholic.

If the brain does not manufactor THIQ we cannot become alcoholic, even if we drink a freight train load."
http://www.recovery-world.com/The-THIQ-Hypothesis.html (http://www.recovery-world.com/The-THIQ-Hypothesis.html)

"THIQ
is normally produced when the body metabolizes heroin and is supposedly not metabolized by non-alcoholics when they drink. According to Ohlms, animal studies have shown that a small amount of THIQ injected into the brains of rats will produce alcoholic rats and that THIQ remains in the brain long after an animal has been injected. Therefore, the theory is that alcoholics are genetically predisposed to produce THIQ in response to alcohol, that the THIQ creates a craving for alcohol, and that the THIQ remains in the brain of the alcoholic long after the use of alcohol is discontinued."
http://nickscape.net/recoveryzone/disease.htm (http://nickscape.net/recoveryzone/disease.htm)

"...the THIQ creates a craving for alcohol, and that the THIQ remains in the brain of the alcoholic long after the use of alcohol is discontinued. This would provide a physiological explanation for the fact that recovering alcoholics who relapse quickly return to their previous use patterns. More recent research on genetic causes of alcoholism has focused on some abnormality in a dopamine receptor gene and deficiencies in the neurotransmitter serotonin or in serotonin receptors."
http://www.alcohol-drug-treatment.net/disease_concept.html (http://www.alcohol-drug-treatment.net/disease_concept.html)

"As far as I understand, THIQ (tetrahydro isoquinoline) is an opiate-like
molecule
produced in the brain of heroin users. It is also formed in some alcoholics
over time. Alcohol normally breaks down into acetaldehyde, then into H2O and
CO2. But in some
people, after alcohol breaks down into acetaldehyde, it is introduced into a chemical which naturally occurs in the body and it turns into THIQ. THIQ is shaped similar to the body's natural opiates, but it is shaped differently enough so that it is not removed from the receptor site."
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/neur-sci/1999-August/039987.html (http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/neur-sci/1999-August/039987.html)

"This is called a "genetic predisposition." Having a predisposition for becoming dependent on alcohol or other sedative type drugs means that the individual may have a different bio-chemical makeup than the person who has no family history of alcoholism. This is explained by the phenomenon of THIQ. Some researchers believe that there is a certain gene for alcoholism, which may direct the production of THIQ."
http://www.addictionsearch.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-5.html (http://www.addictionsearch.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-5.html)

It appears it is well known through out the medical community. Maybe you should research more. Here is a list of some more links. Just ask if you need more.
FYI: these ones are not identical.

http://www.familygrowth.org/reports/alcoholism.pdf (http://www.familygrowth.org/reports/alcoholism.pdf)

http://villagenews.us/artman/publish/article_593.shtml (http://villagenews.us/artman/publish/article_593.shtml)

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/ehn/Web/release/thiq.html (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/ehn/Web/release/thiq.html)

The 5% success rate is not a misrepresentation. You need to re-read the article. Are you aware that if you do not accept the definitions given for "success," then the rate falls to zero? Even those supporting AA, do not dispute the numbers. They even give explanations on how the number went from 100% when AA first started all the way down to the current 5% agreed on number. The explanations are not very convincing.

It would seem the best definition for success would be, total sobriety within the lifetime of a true alcoholic after entering the AA program vs. total sobriety of a true alcoholic within a lifetime without entering the AA program.

This would be the truest way to determine AA's effectiveness. This statistic has not been done yet. That 5% represents how many newcomers stay after a year (it ignores how many return). Also 83% of newcomers who attend AA are not there willingly. If the 5% that stays after a year is part of the 17% that wants to be there then AAs success jumps to 34%. The point is that the number of true alcoholics & non-alcoholics who are in the program is unknown. The number of true alcoholics that continue in the program is unknown. You cannot claim a 5% success rate in “curing” alcoholics if 86% are forced into treatment with most being non-alcoholics. Some of the people who were originally first year dropouts come back into the program and achieve 20-30 years sober. All addicts in any program are infamous for relapsing repeatedly.

Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic. There is no cure and AAs purpose is to get you sober and to help keep you sober. You do not get sober and then get on your way. You cannot wave a wand and say, "You're cured! You won't ever want to drink again." You will be an alcoholic until the day you die and taking just one drink could lead to disaster.

For this reason, AA builds a fellowship for the alcoholic. When they desire to drink, they can go to a meeting or talk to someone about it, instead of hitting the bar and going into rehab after a week/month/year long binger.

The evidence doesn't support your outrageous contentions so now you are going to try unreasoned fear, in hopes of converting us.

I wrote this in response to "any self-respecting skeptic and alcoholic would do well to steer clear of AA", try wearing your own pants first.

I made the point that no alcoholic is self-respecting and that they are all skeptics. Telling an alcoholic, they would do well to steer clear of there only hope is silly. They would rather drink in the first place; many of them do not want “help”.

However, if they did decide they wanted it 93% of all facilities are twelve step based. They do not offer free I’m-broke-and-ruined-my-life-with-booze-and-don’t-believe-
in-god programs. Those seeking help yet unwillingly to go to the AA mob would have no place to go.

In this case it doesn't matter because AA has no effect anyway. One of the reports actually brought up a very good point. The author wondered at the effect hanging around with other alcoholics really had on someone trying to quit. They pointed out that immersing yourself in the culture of alcoholism, attending meetings where everyone talks about alcoholism and basing everything in your life around that culture would not be an effective method to quit drinking. At the very least it would delay your recovery greatly.

You do not understand the alcoholic. It is impossible to ”delay your recovery”. You never recover. Ever.

Why would hanging around sober alcoholics living a sober lifestyle force you to drink? Would not their soberness rub off?
When I attended my very first meeting, I learned that alcoholics could be happy without alcohol. Before I walked in, I thought my life was going to be miserable forever because all I wanted to do was drink, but I thought a miserable life would be better than the life I was living so I decided to walk in. If I had not seen & experienced that alcoholics can be happy and sober I would have gone back to the bottle. Only the community kept me sober. Every night that I wanted to go out drinking, I would talk to people and they would say “We’re go hang out at star bucks/movies/someone’s house/somewhere want to come?”. Just talking to people there when I wanted to drink saved me allot. Stating that being around sober alcoholics is going to lead you to drink is silly.

Shadow

8th March 2007, 12:26 AM

What? Because he reported that the guy was a paedophile means he is biased against AA? That is pretty strange logic but if it works for you. . .

Besides, an argument must either be for or against something to have any merit. That he is biased against AA is of little consequence because his bias is based on sound logical arguments.

His sound logical arguments are quotes out of context, that do not reveal the full picture. His quotes from the alcoholic anymous book are conviently twisted. Yet when the entire paragraph is read, your sources claims make no sense. The tools to manipulate are right there on his page under a section called propaganda & debate. Yet he cannot seem to follow any debate ethics.

That O, so grim, "5% retention rate per year" does not look grim at all when it is learned that 83% of new AA members are forced into the AA program.

Shadow

8th March 2007, 12:49 AM

Have you personally been tested for the presence of THIQ in your brain, or the gene that causes THIQ to be produced in acetaldehyde metabolism? If not, perhaps you should let go of the distinction between "true alcholics" and "heavy drinkers".

Better, I assumed.

Honestly, I have not been tested for THIQ. However, I run 5 generations deep with alcoholic ancestors from my dad's side of the family along with my dad being an alcoholic. I also run 4 generations deep with ancestors on my mom's side of the family along with my mom being an alcoholic. Both my grandfathers were also alcoholics. I hope I'm just a heavy drinker then someday I can drink again.

qayak

8th March 2007, 01:17 AM

Yes, yours are wrong, mine are correct.

Possible but not very probable. Just because you read it in an AA book doesn't make it so.

It appears it is well known through out the medical community. Maybe you should research more. Here is a list of some more links. Just ask if you need more.

They all rely on the same data from the 1950's. If that data is wrong, all these articles are wrong. Can you point me to the original study or follow up studies? Was there any confirmation of this woman's findings?

It would seem the best definition for success would be, total sobriety within the lifetime of a true alcoholic after entering the AA program vs. total sobriety of a true alcoholic within a lifetime without entering the AA program

This would be the truest way to determine AA's effectiveness. This statistic has not been done yet.

But there has been at least one study lasting more than thirty years and this is the one that shows AA has a poor success rate. If there have been no studies as you suggest, how can you make the claims you make?

Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic. There is no cure and AAs purpose is to get you sober and to help keep you sober. You do not get sober and then get on your way. You cannot wave a wand and say, "You're cured! You won't ever want to drink again." You will be an alcoholic until the day you die and taking just one drink could lead to disaster.

This is an AA claim that is completely false. There are many cured alcoholics and some of them drink in moderation. The only way you can make this statement is if you have a narrow definition of what an alcoholic is which includes the idea that one can never be cured. If this is the case with your definition, how do you know whether a person really is an alcoholic? You don't. Which makes your definition useless. You wouldn't even know if you were an alcoholic if the definition relied on something you may do in the distant future.

However, if they did decide they wanted it 93% of all facilities are twelve step based. They do not offer free I’m-broke-and-ruined-my-life-with-booze-and-don’t-believe-in-god programs. Those seeking help yet unwillingly to go to the AA mob would have no place to go.

If you read my response, that was my point. They do have another place to go. They can go it alone and have as good or better (according to statistics) results than the AA programs.

Your belief that AA is the only way for alcoholics is wrong.

You do not understand the alcoholic. It is impossible to ”delay your recovery”. You never recover. Ever.

This is another line from the AA manual that is patently false. Check out the long term study. Alcoholics can be cured and they can do it on their own. I imagine that being convinced by AA that you can not be cured will have a detrimental affect on your chances of being cured.

Only the community kept me sober.

In the end, you kept you sober. Your success is completely due to you as the studies suggest.

qayak

8th March 2007, 01:23 AM

His sound logical arguments are quotes out of context, that do not reveal the full picture. His quotes from the alcoholic anymous book are conviently twisted. Yet when the entire paragraph is read, your sources claims make no sense. The tools to manipulate are right there on his page under a section called propaganda & debate. Yet he cannot seem to follow any debate ethics.

Please demonstrate where his quotes are twisted. Or even taken out of context. Please demonstrate where he debates unethically.

andyandy

8th March 2007, 03:50 AM

As for your own claims: that you still call your "gods" "fictional" and "nonexistent" but still pray to them makes your claims that you are a former nihilist and that you converted disingenuous.

So please, this is a skeptics forum, rhetoric doesn't fly here as well as reason.

why would an explanation re a current attitude over fictional gods invalidate claims relating to a previous ideological position?

And one of the most abused pieces of rhetoric on this forum is the emotional appeal to scepticism - the "I'm a bigger skeptic than you" badge waved around with pride....:)

Shadow

8th March 2007, 03:13 PM

Possible but not very probable. Just because you read it in an AA book doesn't make it so.

My facts come from well-cited academic research not the AA book.

Unlike Christians, I do not need a bible written by a bunch of dead people 2000 years ago to fight the scientific reasoning in today’s world. Instead, I use the much better approach, well-cited evidence. Your ignorance is going to push me to ignore you.

They all rely on the same data from the 1950's. If that data is wrong, all these articles are wrong. Can you point me to the original study or follow up studies? Was there any confirmation of this woman's findings?

No, it is not. There has been other research done by other scientist and
I cited them for you already. I refuse to repeat my argument just because you refuse to read the research. However, here is new link & quote.

"Contrary to what you state, countless studies demonstrate a genetic link in alcoholism/addiction. The offspring of alcoholics are approximately three to five times more likely to develop alcoholism than the offspring of non-alcoholics. Further, D.L. Ohlms in the book "The Disease Concept of Alcoholism" set forth detailed research demonstrating that alcoholics and other addicts produce a highly addictive substance called THIQ during the metabolism of alcohol and certain drugs. THIQ is normally produced when the body metabolizes heroin and is not metabolized by non-alcoholics when they drink. This, in fact, provides a physiological explanation for the fact that those in recovery who relapse quickly return to their previous use patterns. Lastly, recent research on the genetic causes of addiction focus on the abnormality in dopamine receptor genes and deficiencies in the neurotransmitter serotonin and serotonin receptors."
http://www.roadrun.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=10037 (http://www.roadrun.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=10037)

But there has been at least one study lasting more than thirty years and this is the one that shows AA has a poor success rate. If there have been no studies as you suggest, how can you make the claims you make?

I made the claim that you had no statistics. Then I both proved and claimed that 83% of new AA members are forced into the program.
You claimed to have "statistics", I proved you did not. My claims still stand firm, your memory must be failing you, or your selective reading is rotting your brain.

This is an AA claim that is completely false. There are many cured alcoholics and some of them drink in moderation. The only way you can make this statement is if you have a narrow definition of what an alcoholic is which includes the idea that one can never be cured. If this is the case with your definition, how do you know whether a person really is an alcoholic? You don't. Which makes your definition useless. You wouldn't even know if you were an alcoholic if the definition relied on something you may do in the distant future.

I listed the definition of an alcoholic for you already once. The produced THIQ never leaves the brain therefore true alcoholics cannot drink again. This is not AA propaganda its f****** researched science.

Start reading & researching or stop posting & whining. If your only response is "This is an AA claim that is completely false. There are many cured alcoholics and some of them drink in moderation." PROVE IT.

If you read my response, that was my point. They do have another place to go. They can go it alone and have as good or better (according to statistics) results than the AA programs.

I already proved your "statistics" inaccurate, misrepresented, and wrong. Standing by those exact same statistics without addressing why they are right makes you wrong. You have, once again, no case to prove that you are correct.

Your belief that AA is the only way for alcoholics is wrong.

That for certain is not my belief. My belief, is that
1) You have no statistics that prove your claims correct & accurate
2) That 93% of all treatment facilities use a twelve-step process
3) Going it alone, cannot remove THIQ from the brain. As nothing, can.
4) That attempting to get help is the first step in recovering
5) Doing nothing different and going it alone will not result in better results than attempting to get some sort of treatment.

I recognize other methods for staying sober; I also recognize that they work. However, I refuse to recognize your claims that "going it alone" is just as successful as doing something.

This is another line from the AA manual that is patently false. Check out the long term study. Alcoholics can be cured and they can do it on their own. I imagine that being convinced by AA that you can not be cured will have a detrimental affect on your chances of being cured.

O joy is unto me! Another repeat argument I can prove with previous stated facts.

I listed the definition of an alcoholic for you already once. The produced THIQ never leaves the brain therefor true alcoholics cannot drink again. This isn't AA propaganda its f****** researched science.

Heavy drinkers=can be cured
Alcoholics=cannot be cured

Understand?

In the end, you kept you sober. Your success is completely due to you as the studies suggest.

I am so privileged to be "successful" as one of the 5% spontaneously "cured" alcoholics your study suggests. Well since I kept myself sober I should go out and drink to celebrate! I think I will, thank you for the enlightenment. I just need to remember I kept me sober...I hope being drunk won't effect my memory.

The point is I will not keep myself sober, I do not want to. Honestly, I would rather drink. I do not care if I cannot pay bills, get a job, eat; if I can just drink, I will be happy. That is how serious alcoholism is, I do not want to be sober, and I want to be drunk. I do not care what it costs as long as I am drunk.

Even after getting some control back in my life and some bills paid and getting a job I would still rather go out, drink, and mess it all up again. For that reason alone, I try to go to AA as much as possible, because if I do not go to AA I am going to the bar.

largeprimenumber

8th March 2007, 06:44 PM

why would an explanation re a current attitude over fictional gods invalidate claims relating to a previous ideological position?
I said "disingenuous", not "invalid".

And one of the most abused pieces of rhetoric on this forum is the emotional appeal to scepticism - the "I'm a bigger skeptic than you" badge waved around with pride....:)
Did I do that?

qayak

8th March 2007, 06:53 PM

Unlike Christians, I do not need a bible written by a bunch of dead people 2000 years ago to fight the scientific reasoning in today’s world.

You think it is necessary to fight scientific reasoning in today's world? So, exactly where does your evidence come from? One of those make believe gods you created?

Heavy drinkers=can be cured
Alcoholics=cannot be cured

Understand?

Let me explain this one time for you. The problem with your ridiculous definition is that you claim alcoholics have THIQ in their system that they never get rid of and so can never be cured. You claim to be an alcoholic and yet you have never been tested for THIQ.

I have never heard of a single alcoholic being tested for THIQ and I know a lot of alcoholics. How do you know that anyone is an alcoholic? Or how do you know that only heavy drinkers can be cured?

The fact is, you don't know anything. You are just repeating what you have heard in your AA meetings. There is no basis to believe anything you have claimed from the references you cited.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about alcoholism, its definition and testing for. Notice that there is not one mention of THIQ or testing for THIQ:

Epidemiology

Substance use disorders are the major public health problem facing many countries. In the United States today, more than 15 million Americans are estimated to suffer from alcoholism. "The most common substance of abuse/dependence in patients presenting for treatment is alcohol."[1] In the United Kingdom, the number of 'dependent drinkers' was calculated as over 2.8 million in 2001.[2]

Within the medical community, there is broad consensus regarding alcoholism as a well-defined disease state. Outside the medical community, there is considerable debate regarding the Disease Theory of Alcoholism. Proponents argue that any structural or functional disorder having a predictable course, or progression, should be classified as a disease. Opponents cite the inability to pin down the behavioral issues to a physical cause as a reason for avoiding classification.

Identification and diagnosis

Multiple tools are available to those wishing to conduct screening for alcoholism. Identification of alcoholism may be difficult because there is no detectable physiologic difference between a person who drinks a lot and a person with the condition. Identification involves an objective assessment regarding the damage that imbibing alcohol does to the drinker's life compared to the subjective benefits the drinker perceives from consuming alcohol. While there are many cases where an alcoholic's life has been significantly and obviously damaged, there are always borderline cases that can be difficult to classify.

Addiction Medicine specialists have extensive training with respect to diagnosing and treating patients with alcoholism.

Genetic predisposition testing

At least one genetic test[3] exists for an allele that is correlated to alcoholism and opiate addiction. Human dopamine receptor genes have a detectable variation referred to as the DRD2 TaqI polymorphism. Those who possess the A1 allele (variation) of this polymorphism have a small but significant tendency towards addiction to opiates and endorphin releasing drugs like alcohol.[4] Although this allele is slightly more common in alcoholics and opiate addicts, it is not by itself an adequate predictor of alcoholism.

Screening

Several tools may be used to detect a loss of control of alcohol use. These tools are mostly self reports in questionnaire form. Another common theme is a score or tally that sums up the general severity of alcohol use.

The CAGE questionnaire, named for its four questions, is one such example that may be used to screen patients quickly in a doctor's office.
Two "yes" responses indicate that the respondent should be investigated further. The questionnaire asks the following questions:

Have you ever felt you needed to Cut down on your drinking?
Have people Annoyed you by criticizing your drinking?
Have you ever felt Guilty about drinking?
Have you ever felt you needed a drink first thing in the morning (Eye-opener) to steady your nerves or to get rid of a hangover?[5][6]

The CAGE questionnaire, among others, has been extensively validated for use in identifying alcoholism. It is not valid for diagnosis of other substance use disorders, although somewhat modified versions of the CAGE are frequently implemented for such a purpose.

The Alcohol Dependence Data Questionnaire[7] is a more sensitive diagnostic test than the CAGE test. It helps distinguish a diagnosis of alcohol dependence from one of heavy alcohol use.

The Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST)[8] is a screening tool for alcoholism widely used by courts to determine the appropriate sentencing for people convicted of alcohol-related offenses, driving under the influence being the most common.

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is a screening questionnaire developed by the World Health Organization. This test is unique in that it has been validated in six countries and is used internationally.[9] Like the CAGE questionnaire, it uses a simple set of questions - a high score earning a deeper investigation.

The Paddington Alcohol Test (PAT) was designed to screen for alcohol related problems amongst those attending Accident and Emergency departments. It concords well with the AUDIT questionnaire but is administered in a fifth of the time. [citation needed]
A number of free websites provide anonymous self-screening for harmful or hazardous alcohol use, including AlcoholScreening.org and this online version of AUDIT.

DSM diagnosis

The DSM-IV diagnosis of alcohol dependence represents one approach to the definition of alcoholism. In part this is to assist in the development of research protocols in which findings can be compared with one another. According to the DSM-IV, an alcohol dependence diagnosis is:

...maladaptive alcohol use with clinically significant impairment as manifested by at least three of the following within any one-year period: tolerance; withdrawal; taken in greater amounts or over longer time course than intended; desire or unsuccessful attempts to cut down or control use; great deal of time spent obtaining, using, or recovering from use; social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced; continued use despite knowledge of physical or psychological sequelae.

Urine and blood tests

There are reliable tests for the actual use of alcohol, one common test being that of blood alcohol content (BAC). These tests do not differentiate alcoholics from non-alcoholics; however, long-term heavy drinking does have a few recognizable effects on the body, including:

Macrocytosis (enlarged MCV)1
Elevated GGT2
Moderate elevation of AST and ALT and an AST:ALT ratio of 2:1.
High carbohydrate deficient transferrin (CDT

I think that someone in your particular branch of AA read about this THIQ thing and has put it out to the group as the truth. New members are hardly likely to question what old members say and this myth has been handed down ever since. It seems that outside a few alcoholic's sites mention of the original report from 1950, no one feels that THIQ has anything to do with alcoholism.

largeprimenumber

8th March 2007, 07:00 PM

Better, I assumed.

Honestly, I have not been tested for THIQ. However, I run 5 generations deep with alcoholic ancestors from my dad's side of the family along with my dad being an alcoholic. I also run 4 generations deep with ancestors on my mom's side of the family along with my mom being an alcoholic. Both my grandfathers were also alcoholics. I hope I'm just a heavy drinker then someday I can drink again.
I asked this question because I thought it would help illustrate to you that your distinction between "true alcoholics" and "heavy drinkers" is far from verified. There are other hypotheses regarding the causes of alcoholism and they are equally or better supported than the THIQ hypotheses. Since the sequencing of the human genome recently, they've identified some probable genes that might be responsible for alcoholism, but they are tied to dopamine, not THIQ.

Basically, all you've done in this thread is ask us to accept your word that you are a "true alcoholic" and that since AA worked for you, it should work for everyone. You make for a good testimonial, but nothing more.

Shadow

9th March 2007, 01:33 AM

I asked this question because I thought it would help illustrate to you that your distinction between "true alcoholics" and "heavy drinkers" is far from verified. There are other hypotheses regarding the causes of alcoholism and they are equally or better supported than the THIQ hypotheses. Since the sequencing of the human genome recently, they've identified some probable genes that might be responsible for alcoholism, but they are tied to dopamine, not THIQ.

Basically, all you've done in this thread is ask us to accept your word that you are a "true alcoholic" and that since AA worked for you, it should work for everyone. You make for a good testimonial, but nothing more.

"Lastly, recent research on the genetic causes of addiction focus on the abnormality in dopamine receptor genes and deficiencies in the neurotransmitter serotonin and serotonin receptors"

Either way my intent was only that AA is a more viable solution than just trying to sober up alone.

My replies were for proving that currently no tests or results have found AA to be as successful as trying to sober up without AA. Nothing more was intended. I only wanted to prove that statements mean nothing without well researched information. To each their own.

The Atheist

9th March 2007, 01:51 AM

Either way my intent was only that AA is a more viable solution than just trying to sober up alone.

My replies were for proving that currently no tests or results have found AA to be as successful as trying to sober up without AA. Nothing more was intended. I only wanted to prove that statements mean nothing without well researched information. To each their own.

And as long as it's working for you, keep it going.

"Kia Kaha (http://sites.tki.org.nz/newtown/stories/storyReader$1034)", we'd say to you down here.

andyandy

9th March 2007, 02:35 AM

I said "disingenuous", not "invalid".

So what did you mean when you said his claims about a previously held ideological position were disingenous? They are disingenous because he's changed his position? That's a very strange argument.

Solus

9th March 2007, 11:29 AM

Good that you’re not drinking anymore, whatever works to stay away from booze. Let the naysayers tell you otherwise but if it works just stick with it. What you described is called a coping mechanism, we all have them. In time hopefully, someday you may not need it anymore.

For your own good I’ll warn you. Debating here might throw you back off the wagon. :p This is a tough place and if you want to win on a weak argument I suggest you try elsewhere. If you don’t have a ROCK SOLID argument the thread will go on endlessly: Witness LCL (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63587&page=69). Some people here take it as their hobby to argue and will do so until the other side sees it's error. The best part is the longer it goes on, the the more clear it becomes that the poster who started it has a very weak argument (that’s putting it as nicely as possible).

My rule here is never to argue something I know I can’t win. Elsewhere I can argue anything but not here. Again for your good, try an easier forum first. Here's one that will have people less educated and skilled in debate:http://www.hannity.com/forum/

Or alternatively go to other parts of the forum, watch and learn. The 9/11 stuff here might even make you angry but you have other people to help show them for the fools they are. Try Carl Sagan's book as well that's a good start to learning the basics. Work on your skills and try again later when you are better prepared, good luck!

If you become very frustrated or this thread goes on for 3000 posts don't say I didn't warn you...

Moochie

9th March 2007, 11:31 AM

yes! You should remain an alcoholic - far better than believing in a higher power! :D

At least the alcohol doesn't have a bunch of self-appointed intermediaries telling me what to do.

M.

Solus

9th March 2007, 11:46 AM

I felt sorry for him, he should really take my advice and go over to Hannity's :gasp: forum.

andyandy

9th March 2007, 02:33 PM

At least the alcohol doesn't have a bunch of self-appointed intermediaries telling me what to do.

M.

i'd prefer to have a loved one believe in God than be an alcoholic. Perhaps you'd rather the opposite? :rolleyes:

Shadow

9th March 2007, 02:36 PM

So, exactly where does your evidence come from? One of those make believe gods you created?[quote]
...or medical journals, msu dissertations, bio chemical websites, your sources...

Why do you hate my gods so much? I made them up, they should only be of concern to me. I don't claim that your arguments come from the voices in your head...although I'm pretty sure they do.

[quote]
Let me explain this one time for you.

Why only once? I had to repeat my arguments several times for you.

I have never heard of a single alcoholic being tested for THIQ and I know a lot of alcoholics.

Well if you've never heard of it then it must be true. Your word has no value to me.

If you really knew as many alcoholics as you claim then you would have surely heard of them being tested for THIQ. Since I go to AA meetings and can claim to know more alcoholics than you, I will state, I have heard of alcoholics being tested for THIQ. Does this make me right or that I am telling the truth? No, but it has more validity than your statement.

The fact is, you don't know anything. ...There is no basis to believe anything you have claimed from the references you cited.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about alcoholism, its definition and testing for. Notice that there is not one mention of THIQ or testing for THIQ:

You are boring me now. I quote medical research, bio-chemical research, your own sources, an msu law dissertation and other research. You quote a lunatic, one misrepresented source(I later quoted this source to correctly represent it) and wikipedia. You are obviously to ignorant to understand what you are talking about.

I think that someone in your particular branch of AA read about this THIQ thing and has put it out to the group as the truth. New members are hardly likely to question what old members say and this myth has been handed down ever since. It seems that outside a few alcoholic's sites mention of the original report from 1950, no one feels that THIQ has anything to do with alcoholism.

http://www.pillole.org/public/aspnuke/downloads/documenti/alcolefeto.pdf

http://lansbury.bwh.harvard.edu/dopamine_references_2003.htm

http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/51/2/341?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=

Genetic predisposition testing

"At least one genetic test[3] exists for an allele that is correlated to alcoholism and opiate addiction. Human dopamine receptor genes have a detectable variation referred to as the DRD2 TaqI polymorphism. Those who possess the A1 allele (variation) of this polymorphism have a small but significant tendency towards addiction to opiates and endorphin releasing drugs like alcohol.[4] Although this allele is slightly more common in alcoholics and opiate addicts, it is not by itself an adequate predictor of alcoholism."

Try looking under tetrahydroisoquinoline (known as THIQ) on google there is plenty of research linking it to alcoholism and TaqI polymorphisms.

I agree about wikipedia, I too noticed wikipedia has nothing on tetrahydroisoquinoline at all. As it is a recognized compound in the bio-chemical field it must mean wikipedia is not all powerful all knowing. Try researching.

Just because the terminology is to technical for you is no reason to give up and make conspiracy theories. Although doing such is acceptable as you have no ground left to stand on and are desperately trying to prove...what? That you can't research with your computer? Big words confuse you? Go to wikipedia when you can't think of anything else? Wikipedia is not the end all solution with all the answers? You are great at making up conspiracy theories? Your debate skills are lacking? You have selective reading? I'm not sure what your trying to prove, but you proved all the above, bravo.

Shadow

9th March 2007, 02:41 PM

At least the alcohol doesn't have a bunch of self-appointed intermediaries telling me what to do.

M.

Is not a bunch of alcohol a self-appointed intermediary telling you what to do?

The Atheist

9th March 2007, 09:02 PM

largeprimenumber

10th March 2007, 04:54 AM

Either way my intent was only that AA is a more viable solution than just trying to sober up alone.

My replies were for proving that currently no tests or results have found AA to be as successful as trying to sober up without AA. Nothing more was intended. I only wanted to prove that statements mean nothing without well researched information. To each their own.
Only because the criteria for the tests didn't match your own criteria. You haven't given any positive evidence for your claim that AA is more successful than no AA.

largeprimenumber

10th March 2007, 05:00 AM

So what did you mean when you said his claims about a previously held ideological position were disingenous? They are disingenous because he's changed his position? That's a very strange argument.
I think they disingenuous not because he changed his position, but that he claims to have "converted" but also claims that his gods are imaginary. If his gods are imaginary, then he's not really believing anything outside of himself--or more precisely, he doesn't believe that he believes in something outside of himself. In this light, his claim that he was a nihilist seems like a device to increase the contrast between his former self and his current self.

andyandy

10th March 2007, 07:35 AM

In this light, his claim that he was a nihilist seems like a device to increase the contrast between his former self and his current self.

i agree that "nihlist" seems to be being used in a rather loose sense, "nihilism" in this case seems to simply imply a lack of belief [in God]. As such, well, atheist would be more appropriate. I don't however believe this is sufficient to accuse the OP of being disingenous, just perhaps not quite rigorous enough in his terminology.....especially in light of the nit-pickers aplenty at JREF [myself included] :)

Moochie

10th March 2007, 12:51 PM

i'd prefer to have a loved one believe in God than be an alcoholic. Perhaps you'd rather the opposite? :rolleyes:

No brainer... Smirnoff :D

M.

Moochie

10th March 2007, 12:58 PM

Is not a bunch of alcohol a self-appointed intermediary telling you what to do?

Um, not really. Clever, though :D

M.

Shadow

10th March 2007, 01:54 PM

Only because the criteria for the tests didn't match your own criteria. You haven't given any positive evidence for your claim that AA is more successful than no AA.

If you wanted to accurately compare those spontaneously "cured" and AA successfulness then both would need to be compared on the same time-line. This is not the case as those spontaneously "cured" is over an entire lifetime and AA only 1 year.

The only evidence available to me is that only 17% of newcomers willingly attend AA and that 5% stay after one year. This would suggest a 34% success rate of those that wanted to be helped. This number is 7 times larger than the 5% that was implied and much larger than the 5% spontaneously "cured". This would suggest that waiting on a spontaneous “curing” would not be as successful as attending AA. You cannot cure the sick if the sick do not desire to be cured.

Along with this 34% yearly chance at success it should only take a willing alcoholic an attempt of 3 years at AA before they succeeded at their sobriety. This success is a far more viable solution than waiting an entire lifetime to yield a 5% chance at success.

andyandy

10th March 2007, 01:58 PM

Can one ever take a position of believing in something that they know does not exist? Can there be self delusion when you are conciously aware of that delusion? What is left? A belief in one's own insanity? But how can you trust your own belief when you believe yourself to be insane?

seems like there's a paradox in there somewhere :)

qayak

10th March 2007, 02:22 PM

As noted, there are some here to whom the thought of someone worshipping anything non-physical is more abhorrent than an actual life being ruined by alcohol addiction. Odd, but true.

I recommended a book on another thread and as I hadn't read it in awhile I took it with me to my local coffee shop and browsed through it over my morning coffee.

I didn't get past the foreword by Stephen Jay Gould and he had already addressed your issue. I think he made the point better than I ever could so I will use a few lines from him in response.

"The need -both intellectual and moral- for skepticism arises from Pascal's famous metaphorical observation that humans are "thinking reeds," that is, both gloriously unique and uniquely vulnerable."

"But we are thinking reeds, not rational creatures. Our patterns of thought and action lead to destruction and brutality as often as kindness and enlightenment."

"For unless we rigorously use human reason both to discover and acknowledge nature's factuality, and to follow the logical implications for efficacious human action that such knowledge entails, we will lose out to the frightening forces of irrationality, romanticism, uncompromising "true" belief, and the apparent resulting inevitability of mob action.

"Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism - and is therefore one of the keys to social and civic decency."

"Our best weapons come from the arsenal of basic scientific procedures - for nothing can beat the basic experimental technique of the double-blind procedure and the fundamental observational methods of statistical analysis."

"Skepticism's bad rap arises from the impression that, however necessary the activity, it can only be regarded as the negative removal of false claims. Not so - as this book shows so well. Proper debunkingis done in the interest of an alternate model of explanation, not as a nihilistic exercise. The alternate model is rationality itself, tied to moral decency - the most powerful joint instrument for good our planet has ever known."

So, in response to your believe that I would prefer to have someone have their life ruined byalcohol addiction than have them worshipping anything non-physical, I would like to say that I don't see that one is better than the other. Both are destructive although in different manners. More importantly, it is not a choice between alcoholism and false belief in gods. The choice is between a system that has been shown to not work and one that works.

I would prefer, as Gould says, that reason carry the day. I am fully aware of the negative effects of alcoholism. Alcoholism, just like any addiction, is a tough thing to overcome. Why make it tougher with blind faith in a system that doesn't work?

qayak

10th March 2007, 02:27 PM

If you wanted to accurately compare those spontaneously "cured" and AA successfulness then both would need to be compared on the same time-line. This is not the case as those spontaneously "cured" is over an entire lifetime and AA only 1 year.

You have either failed to read what I cited or you are misrepresenting it here. All groups were studied for the same length of time in all cases.

largeprimenumber

10th March 2007, 11:14 PM

i agree that "nihlist" seems to be being used in a rather loose sense, "nihilism" in this case seems to simply imply a lack of belief [in God]. As such, well, atheist would be more appropriate. I don't however believe this is sufficient to accuse the OP of being disingenous, just perhaps not quite rigorous enough in his terminology.....especially in light of the nit-pickers aplenty at JREF [myself included] :)
That seems reasonable. I take back what I said about his claims being disingenuous and apologize for reaching to that conclusion.

The Atheist

10th March 2007, 11:15 PM

So, in response to your believe that I would prefer to have someone have their life ruined byalcohol addiction than have them worshipping anything non-physical, I would like to say that I don't see that one is better than the other. Both are destructive although in different manners. More importantly, it is not a choice between alcoholism and false belief in gods. The choice is between a system that has been shown to not work and one that works.

The trouble is that theory falls on its face given that, for some people AA works. There have unquestionably been alcoholics who have stayed off the piss thanks to AA. Whether or not they would have anyway isn't an issue - AA has worked, and continues to work. That's the issue.

Comparing the destructive effect of alcoholism to any destructive effect of religion is not just childish, it's absurd. One is a life, the other's a philosophy. One is certain ruin and death, the other, you can't even disprove. Taking the attitude you are does you no credit at all. You may as well go and attack some cerebral palsy sufferers or start a fight with a Down's Syndrome person. Harsh, but true - alcoholism can be every bit as restrictive to the addict's life as CP and DS are to those sufferers.

The only no-brainer in this entire question is Shadow's - Stay off the booze.

The end.

I would prefer, as Gould says, that reason carry the day. I am fully aware of the negative effects of alcoholism. Alcoholism, just like any addiction, is a tough thing to overcome. Why make it tougher with blind faith in a system that doesn't work?

If, for some reason, that blind faith makes it easier for some, who are you to judge them?

largeprimenumber

10th March 2007, 11:21 PM

The only evidence available to me is that only 17% of newcomers willingly attend AA and that 5% stay after one year. This would suggest a 34% success rate of those that wanted to be helped. This number is 7 times larger than the 5% that was implied and much larger than the 5% spontaneously "cured". This would suggest that waiting on a spontaneous “curing” would not be as successful as attending AA.
Taking people who are forced to attend AA is pretty much against the AA doctrine, is it not? Why doesn't AA refuse to accept people who are there under coercion? It would save everyone a lot of trouble.

You cannot cure the sick if the sick do not desire to be cured.
This is simply not true. If someone has a strep infection and I give them erythromycin, their willingness to be cured has no effect on the action of the antibiotic on the infection.

Cosmo

10th March 2007, 11:38 PM

Taking people who are forced to attend AA is pretty much against the AA doctrine, is it not? Why doesn't AA refuse to accept people who are there under coercion? It would save everyone a lot of trouble.

I thought "people who are forced to attend AA" meant those people who are under court orders or similar legal restrictions that require them to attend AA. I'm not sure what other kinds of coercion are possible in this case. A forced intervention from your friends, maybe?

Slimething

11th March 2007, 01:35 AM

You apparently do not understand the alcoholic. There is no such thing as the self-respecting alcoholic much like there is no such thing as the self-respecting heroine junky. Through the production of THIQ in the alcoholic brain, alcohol actually becomes as addictive as heroine.

Shadow,

Hats off to you! :th:

My ex was an alcoholic. Alcoholism is, even now, despite the helpfull hand of AA, destroying her. It destroyed my family. AA was the most helpful service she had, even though she went to private counselors rnd psychs. Alcoholism is a terrible, terrible disease. I went to the dependent's version of AA *Al-anon" and, yes, there was a lot of god-talk there but the belief in any type of resource outside their lives was enough to help them hold on. What type of monster would stand up and berate these desperate people for this belief in woo?

I don't believe in god but I would not, and do not, begrudge anyone who does. Life affords us so little in the ways of coping with its trials that I congratulate anyone who uses any mechanism to escape insanity and ruin.

You are setting an invaluable example to all those who have developed physical and psychological addictions. You get an "Attaboy" from me. :)

Shadow

12th March 2007, 12:57 PM

Taking people who are forced to attend AA is pretty much against the AA doctrine, is it not? Why doesn't AA refuse to accept people who are there under coercion? It would save everyone a lot of trouble.

When a larger corporation, like a hospital, manages AA groups then AA succumbs to the will of such entities. Although AA states that this should not happen, the fact is anyone can form an AA group. AA is not a franchise that has to be bought and maintained correctly or the franchise looses the name. Anyone with a few dollars can buy a book, a couple posters and start an "AA group".

There is not a roll call and a questionnaire to determine who is court-ordered, forced by parents or rehab facilities. Anonymous is in the name, it is unknown who is coerced there. However, only an idiot would not be able to figure out that all you have to do to leave AA is walk out the same doors you came in. Anyone is free to leave at any time thus removing the need to refuse anyone. Only facilities managed by larger entities would use locked doors, and then I would assume written consent is required prior to being locked in.