Moderated: Why do people insist AA is not religious?/Efficacy of AA & other treatment programs

[Bamberger]

A suggested modification to the AA preamble in order to better highlight the organization's focus on God:

Alcoholics Anonymous is a spiritually-oriented, God-centered fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.

The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. Recovery in the AA program can be found by working the 12 Steps, through which a God-consciousness can be developed and maintained. There are no dues or fees for A.A. membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions. A.A. is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober, and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety and to improve our conscious contact with a God of our understanding.

[8den]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Yawn.

Before trying to discover any 'efficacy' in naltrexone, who is going to sort out which of the 7 DSM symptoms are being measured in any specific study?

"alcohol dependence"

It may be boring to you, but some people find the idea of exploring alcohol addiction in different terms that some kind of "spiritual deficiency" in the dependent alcoholic incredibly important and significant.

Much in the way that 50 years ago someone suffering from depression would be told just to "buck up and get on with it", and instead today can be prescribed anti depressants as part of their therapy, it may be possible to overcome the worst aspect of physical dependence with pharmacology, working alongside psychotherapy to help people.

Treating alcohol dependence with science rather than with something from a revival tent not something you should find yawn inducing.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Yawn.

Before trying to discover any 'efficacy' in naltrexone, who is going to sort out which of the 7 DSM symptoms are being measured in any specific study?

"alcohol dependence"

Uh...the studies on naltrexone measure among other things, days abstinent, difference in drinks consumed, and reduction of craving.

I don't understand what your objection actually considering the data is.

[AlBell]

From DSM-IV

Quote:

Tolerance
Withdrawal symptoms or clinically defined Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome
Use in larger amounts or for longer periods than intended
Persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down on alcohol use
Time is spent obtaining alcohol or recovering from effects
Social, occupational and recreational pursuits are given up or reduced because of alcohol use
Use is continued despite knowledge of alcohol-related harm (physical or psychological)

Those DSM-IV criteria have imo no relevance to the alcoholics AA is set up to help. Picking and choosing any three, then discussing the ameliorating effects of a drug (measured by self-reporting) is laughable when discussing what would be considered an alcoholic in any AA closed discussion meeting group I've ever been a member of.

The last two are where 'AA alcoholism' is at least a possibility.

Attempting to compare efficacy of the studies with respect to AA success (or failure) rate is comparing fluffy little kittens to wild tigers.

[Jack Astor]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Yawn.

Before trying to discover any 'efficacy' in naltrexone, who is going to sort out which of the 7 DSM symptoms are being measured in any specific study?

"alcohol dependence"

It seriously doubt you have read any of these studies, or you would not have written this. I also seriously doubt it matters what they show. Most AA's I've discussed these things with are also ignorant of other treatment approaches. Mostly because these are outside issues, and not allowed to be discussed within AA.

The very fact that studies are done at all on Naltrexone shows the difference between real treatment, and religious treatment. Among the things these studies have shown, is that Naltrexone is no more effective than a placebo when used as strictly an abstinence tool. It doesn't help a person quit drinking that way. Regardless of how much anecdotal evidence there was, and regardless of those people who took Naltrexone and also quit drinking swearing up and down it helped them, we know it didn't. This is great, because this is how science advances. There are similar drugs being tested with similar effects on brain receptors, and they also look promising. Hopefully, they we prove to be effective. AA and AAs aren't willing to subject themselves to the same manner of testing and studies, because they aren't interested in improvement. AA is a religion, and religion doesn't change, improve or refine. It already has the answer. Any change is heresy.

The good thing about Naltrexone is it works quite well in conjunction with the Sinclair Method. So, it is an effective drug for alcohol addiction, but in that specific way. With time, there will be better and even more effective treatments. And AA will have nothing to do with it, which is a shame.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Jack Astor

I never once said I am "looking things up," or even words to that effect. You pulled this out thin air. I also said I don't recommend these groups.

My sincere apologies. It was 8den that made those claims. My bad.

Originally Posted by Jack Astor

I also recommended the Sinclair Method for those who can't quit on their own, and told you that I won't provide you the links because you don't discuss these things in good faith.

It's your claim mate, you get to support it.
I'm happy to wait.

Originally Posted by 8den

So I recommended some alternatives.

Yes you did. But why? Do they work? Why would you "recommend" something unless you knows that it works?

Originally Posted by 8den

I made a state that alternatives exist. Do I now need to prove their existence?

I know they exist as well as you do. But you made "recommendations", I would like to know what sort of results they have. Can you show me or not?

Originally Posted by 8den

See now you're demanding I prove that these alternatives are efficacy.

Indeed I am. Like I say, I want to know why you make these recommendations; you must have a reason, they must work musn't they?

Originally Posted by 8den

I didn't recommend them I just pointed out their existence.

Er.... Four sentences ago you said you "recommended some alternatives", now you are saying you didn't. Which is it?

And just to remind you of what you did say (my highlight) ...

Originally Posted by 8den

For anyone reading this thread and having trouble with alcohol addiction I'd recommend

http://www.smartrecovery.org/
http://www.mywayout.org/

and the blogroll on the side of the page of stinkin thinkin has a list of alternatives available

http://stinkin-thinkin.com/

So again. If you are making recommendations, you must have some reason apart from "they are not AA" (or similar). Surely you are not making blind, fact free and unqualified recommendations to people are you?
I thought that was the sort of thing that you abhor in AA.

And as an extension, why does Stinkin Thinkin provide a list of alternatives? Do they have the results of those? Why do they actively promote these other treatments? Where is the efficacy results for them?

Originally Posted by 8den

Dude seriously it's your job. If a client comes to you and says "I don't like AA" do you just say 'You're doing it wrong keep going back", or "Okay well lets look at some alternatives?"

Indeed it is my job. So before I go making recommendations to them I will make sure I have some facts. I have yet to see anything on the efficacy on the treatments you "recommend" hence my eager desire to see them.

Where are they?

Originally Posted by 8den

Seriously A.A. Alfie you're asking me to prove the efficacy of alternatives to AA?

Well you did make recommendations didn't you?
Why?

Originally Posted by 8den

I've made no claims I've just said they're different.

Sure they're "different". But are they effective?

Originally Posted by 8den

, what's wrong about mentioning some alternatives, without you pouncing and demanding that I prove that they're more effective then AA.

Nothing wrong with it at all. In fact I would encourage it. But if you are going to recommend them, you need a good reason as to why you do.

What is your reason and by extension, Stinkin Thinkin's? Where are the efficacy results for alcoholics?

Originally Posted by 8den

Trying to prove a alternative to AA is more or else effective than AA is impossible

I'm not asking for better or worse, I am asking for their results. What are they?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Jack Astor

It seriously doubt you have read any of these studies, or you would not have written this.

What studies do you refer to specifically?

Originally Posted by Jack Astor

The good thing about Naltrexone is it works quite well in conjunction with the Sinclair Method.

How well does the joint application work? What sort of results are they getting for alcohol dependant people?

[benbradley]

Originally Posted by Bamberger

A suggested modification to the AA preamble in order to better highlight the organization's focus on God:

Alcoholics Anonymous is a spiritually-oriented, God-centered fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.

The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. Recovery in the AA program can be found by working the 12 Steps, through which a God-consciousness can be developed and maintained. There are no dues or fees for A.A. membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions. A.A. is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober, and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety and to improve our conscious contact with a God of our understanding.

There's no more chance of that being read for the preamble at AA meetings than the Catholic Church starting off every Mass by saying "We cannot guarantee that your child will not be molested by a Priest, and if you report it to us we cannot guarantee the Priest won't just get sent to another parish where he can do the same thing to some other child."

You would also need to change some websites. Check these two out:
http://aa.org
http://na.org
There's not a word about God or a Higher Power on the main page of either of those sites. It might be an interesting exercise to see how many clicks it takes to get to the word God, or to get to the 12 steps themselves, which are also not mentioned on the main page of either site.

Reading that first pamphlet pn the AA site "This is A.A. A Brief Guide to Alcoholics Anonymous," the first 14 pages looks like a purely secular program. before it mentions the steps and God, and even then there's the "God can be anything you want" statement.

The big book advises when doing 9th step amends to not talk about how you "found God" in AA as some people may be biased against religion, and mentioning it would be "leading with the chin."


To use an AA slogan, "there are no coincidences," at least not here.

[Jack Astor]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

It's your claim mate, you get to support it.
I'm happy to wait.

I'm assuming you mean "moot." You seem to thinking I'm debating you. Let me tell you once more that I'm not. You keep asking for the very things which have been provided here by others, and which you keep ignoring. For a whole year. It's stunning. The last thing I'm going to do is play your fetch boy.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Jack Astor

I'm assuming you mean "moot." You seem to thinking I'm debating you. Let me tell you once more that I'm not. You keep asking for the very things which have been provided here by others, and which you keep ignoring. For a whole year. It's stunning. The last thing I'm going to do is play your fetch boy.

I understand.
It's not there and you can't produce it.

"Mate": usually a friend or acquaintance but anyone can be a mate.

http://www.australiatravelsearch.com.au/trc/slang.html

[Bamberger]

Originally Posted by benbradley

There's not a word about God or a Higher Power on the main page of either of those sites. It might be an interesting exercise to see how many clicks it takes to get to the word God, or to get to the 12 steps themselves, which are also not mentioned on the main page of either site.

That's a big problem in my eyes because on the surface it leads one to believe that AA is some kind of secular self-help group. The devil emerges in the details however as one goes beyond the superficial and actually experiences a real meeting or reads the AA literature. The word "God" becomes unavoidable at that point.

It simply amazes me that many AA members deny this simple reality.

[Hallo Alfie]

No-one denies the word "god" (notwithstanding the claims about the website which I haven't checked).

As an aside, I would also imagine that those who oppose AA would have made demands that the word god be removed from their websites too.

The God aspect is "as we understood him". And now we go back to the same old argument we have been having about what "God" means for each person, what "as we understood him" means for each person, whether they accept a deity, reject deities, embrace spirituality, remain steadfastly atheist or agnostic etc etc.

[Bamberger]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

No-one denies the word "god" (notwithstanding the claims about the website which I haven't checked).

I suggest you do so.

[Ketyk]

Originally Posted by Bamberger

That's a big problem in my eyes because on the surface it leads one to believe that AA is some kind of secular self-help group.

Dou you youself believe that it is some kind of secular self-help group? I don't know anyone in AA that thinks it is. How is it that people in AA understand what it is trying to do, and you don't? No one is having the wool pulled over their eyes. If the spiritual aspect is not right for anyone, they can leave, or simply go to a meeting understanding that this is one aspect of recovery, not the entire curriculum.

Originally Posted by Bamberger

The devil emerges in the details however as one goes beyond the superficial and actually experiences a real meeting or reads the AA literature. The word "God" becomes unavoidable at that point.

True, but I don't try to avoid it. Why would I? I don't run AA, nor try to change it. I use it as a tool to see the mistakes I have made, and see how others dealt with addiction. Again, it's just a method that has been used for decades. I don't agree with everything about AA, but I don't have to.

Originally Posted by Bamberger

It simply amazes me that many AA members deny this simple reality.

What reality? Be specific here, please. I really don't get your point here. Are you saying that AA is converting Atheists+Agnostics into Christians. Are you saying AA denies that it is religious? If the latter please explain why this is a problem.

[Hallo Alfie]

Anyone who is actually in AA is fully aware of the very broad spiritual latitude that is given. Generally speaking, it is only non members or ex members with a hatred for God or AA take the type of line reflected in the posts of our friend above.

Edited by LashL:

Edited for moderated thread.

[Jack Astor]

Originally Posted by Ketyk

Be specific here, please. I really don't get your point here. Are you saying that AA is converting Atheists+Agnostics into Christians. Are you saying AA denies that it is religious? If the latter please explain why this is a problem.

This was not directed to me, but I thought that I would address it:

AA is converting Atheists, Agositcs, Jews, Heathens, Christians, anyone - not into Christians. They are converting them into AAs. AA is not a religious program, it is religion in itself.

You can't tell me in good faith that as a member of AA, you have not heard the term "spiritual, not religious" too many times to count. It happens ad nauseum, in fact. Here is a nice song dance about it from Hazelden on the subject. I find this interesting because they don't mention God one time, even in describing the 12 steps.

This is a problem because it is deceptive recruiting of people into a religious program. It's manipulative. It tricks people who want addiction help, not religion. It takes advantage of people. It brainwashes them. It doesn't fix their problem. It teaches them to "carry the message" the same way in which it was received, which was by deception. It's gaslighting. In the case of Hazelden or other treatment centres, it costs them tens of thousands of dollars in the process. And on, and on, and on.

[Bamberger]

Originally Posted by Ketyk

Dou you youself believe that it is some kind of secular self-help group? I don't know anyone in AA that thinks it is. How is it that people in AA understand what it is trying to do, and you don't?

I'm talking about the uninitiated newcomer or healthcare provider, not the AA members themselves. If you check out the AA.org website the first page makes no reference to God.

Originally Posted by Ketyk

Are you saying that AA is converting Atheists+Agnostics into Christians. Are you saying AA denies that it is religious? If the latter please explain why this is a problem.

I believe there is a chapter in the basic AA text that deals with your first question. I'm not sure how to answer your second question. AA is by the very nature of its literature religiously oriented. There are an abundance of references to the word "God" used in the basic texts of the program. Pronouns relating to this "God" are always masculine and proper ("Him", "His"). This practice is most commonly associated with religious texts, although I suppose this can also be done when referring to the monarchy.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Jack Astor

This was not directed to me, but I thought that I would address it:

Oh good, your back Jack.

How is that info on the naltrexone Sinclair mix coming?
I have yet to locate anything myself, could you please furnish us with the information that supports your claims?

Originally Posted by Bamberger

I'm talking about the uninitiated newcomer or healthcare provider, not the AA members themselves. If you check out the AA.org website the first page makes no reference to God.

I believe there is a chapter in the basic AA text that deals with your first question. I'm not sure how to answer your second question. AA is by the very nature of its literature religiously oriented. There are an abundance of references to the word "God" used in the basic texts of the program. Pronouns relating to this "God" are always masculine and proper ("Him", "His"). This practice is most commonly associated with religious texts, although I suppose this can also be done when referring to the monarchy.

I really must repeat this Banberger. There is no way that you could nit understand the line that AA takes.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Anyone who is actually in AA is fully aware of the very broad spiritual latitude that is given. Generally speaking, it is only non members or ex members with a hatred for God or AA take the type of line reflected in the posts of our friend above.

Just curious, where do you hail from? Which meetings do you attend and how often? How long have you been sober and attending AA?

[Ketyk]

Originally Posted by Jack Astor

AA is not a religious program, it is religion in itself.

Being Agnostic, I don't care.

Originally Posted by Jack Astor

You can't tell me in good faith that as a member of AA, you have not heard the term "spiritual, not religious" too many times to count. It happens ad nauseum, in fact.

Ha, you said Faith! I have you now, Jack! Just kidding.
I agree it does. In fact, I think we agree on almost everything except that you think it is bad, and I don't.

I think this is the point that has led to such a long thread, the profound distance between those that have a belief that there is an unexplainable depth to the human spirit, called Faith, and those that believe that scientific analysis is the best(if not only) way to order ones affairs.

Further, there is a problem in that those of Faith look at Atheists as robots, while Atheists look at Believers as dupes, generally speaking of course. Me, I have no problem with anyones belief system.

Our other point of disagreement is that you find AA to be harmful, where I don't. I understand your point, though. AA has dogma that can can be shockingly pessimistic. "Rarely have we seen..." is just one example. I know them, and don't like them.

Someone that believes AA is the only way is being myopic, and uninformed to the point of being harmed. If AA did that, it would be harmful. Thank goodness it doesn't.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Yawn.

Before trying to discover any 'efficacy' in naltrexone, who is going to sort out which of the 7 DSM symptoms are being measured in any specific study?

"alcohol dependence"

Um, you do a behavioral analysis of the criteria with metric scoring and frequency of events.

Why did you ask?

they are seven criteria, which should be evidenced for period of twelve months. they are not symptoms.

So it depends which criteria you want to look at, how you set up the metric and rate of data collection.

"(5) a great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance (e.g., visiting multiple doctors or driving long distances), use the substance (e.g., chain-smoking), or recover from its effects "

A measure of time spent intoxicated or hung over would be one possible measure.

"(6) important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use "

this one would have to be scored more carefully,
-work: work preformance, risks and hazards, time absent
-social: time spent with non-using people
-recreational: time spent not drunk or using

It really depends, the scoring could get quite fine in these areas.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by AlBell

From DSM-IV



Those DSM-IV criteria have imo no relevance to the alcoholics AA is set up to help. Picking and choosing any three, then discussing the ameliorating effects of a drug (measured by self-reporting) is laughable when discussing what would be considered an alcoholic in any AA closed discussion meeting group I've ever been a member of.

The last two are where 'AA alcoholism' is at least a possibility.

Attempting to compare efficacy of the studies with respect to AA success (or failure) rate is comparing fluffy little kittens to wild tigers.

Funny AlBell!

So first off where is this an Official Sanctioned AA policy?

Then let us look at the first five shall we:
Tolerance
Withdrawal symptoms or clinically defined Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome
Use in larger amounts or for longer periods than intended
Persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down on alcohol use
Time is spent obtaining alcohol or recovering from effects


So AA while it supposedly helps people with a drinking propblemss does not help with:

tolerance-seriously a person abstinent from alcohol is going to have the exact same tolerance for alcohol?

W/D-ditto

Use in larger amounts or for longer periods than intended ; so if some one relapses you just say that the AA programs is worthless? have you really thought about this. I thought if you relapsed the goal was to get and stay sober ASAP? One would hope this would be a visible metric from AA attendance over time, that the individual used less and spent more time sober, duh especially if they 'period of use' is zero.

Persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down on alcohol use :same as above shortening the amount of time in a relapse would be crucial.

Time is spent obtaining alcohol or recovering from effects: double ditto.

I am sure that you meant something else but if the goal of AA is to help people stop drinking who are problem drinkers, then everyone of those criteria would show an impact.

So what the Fred did you mean to say? Your statement borders on the absurd on its face value, so what did you mean to say?


As to the final two criteria you say AA is meant for a life skills based program with CBT and relapse prevention planning leading to abstinence would be more effective.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Anyone who is actually in AA is fully aware of the very broad spiritual latitude that is given.

That seems like a bold claim, considering how many AAers have said the exact opposite in this thread.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I am sure that you meant something else but if the goal of AA is to help people stop drinking who are problem drinkers, then everyone of those criteria would show an impact.

So what the Fred did you mean to say? Your statement borders on the absurd on its face value, so what did you mean to say?

I said exactly what I meant. The goal of AA is 'Stop Drinking', so none of the 7 remain a problem.

Quote:

As to the final two criteria you say AA is meant for, a life skills based program with CBT and relapse prevention planning leading to abstinence would be more effective.

Er, yes, effective AA is exactly the bolded phrase.

And also yes, if the final two criteria are not The Problem, I'd agree AA is not for that person.

[Bamberger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

That seems like a bold claim, considering how many AAers have said the exact opposite in this thread.

...and considering AA literature explicitly states that recovery from both alcoholism and moral defects is directly tied to fostering a relationship with a monotheistic deity specifically referred to as "God".

[DannyB II]

Originally Posted by Belz...

That seems like a bold claim, considering how many AAers have said the exact opposite in this thread.

No Belz, your statement would be absolutely false. Every AA'er has been saying exactly what Alfie stated.

[benbradley]

I just came across this webpage titled "That Ain't In The Book!"

http://www.irecovered.com/

It's rather amusing to see so many common slogans countered by quotes from the Big Book, but it also shows some subtle changes in AA since the book was written.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by DannyB II

No Belz, your statement would be absolutely false. Every AA'er has been saying exactly what Alfie stated.

So Tinyal and the others who have actually been in AA or around it don't know what they're talking about ?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Belz...

So Tinyal and the others who have actually been in AA or around it don't know what they're talking about ?

Tinyal is actually tacit proof that God isn't required. He says is an atheist that is 20+ years sober in AA. He obtained and maintained sobriety without (presumably) a God.

[Jack Astor]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

How is that info on the naltrexone Sinclair mix coming?
I have yet to locate anything myself, could you please furnish us with the information that supports your claims?

So, are you unaware of the studies supporting the Sinclair Method? If you are not, then you not very informed as a self-certified expert. If you are, you could provide the links themselves.

I told you to go ahead and look at the very links you ignored in this thread. They have been given to you before, without a hint of acknowledgment.

[gentlehorse]

Originally Posted by Belz...

So Tinyal and the others who have actually been in AA or around it don't know what they're talking about ?

If they are not fully aware of the very broad spiritual latitude that is given, then that is exactly what I would say, unless, of course, I had reason to believe that the AA they experienced is completely and totally different from anything I've experienced. Always a possibility, I suppose-- I've only ever experienced AA in a small handful of states in the US, over a period of eight or so years. Taking my personal experience into consideration, I have to admit to taking what they have to say with a grain of salt.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Jack Astor

So, are you unaware of the studies supporting the Sinclair Method?

In other words you don't have them and cannot support your claims?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Tinyal is actually tacit proof that God isn't required. He says is an atheist that is 20+ years sober in AA. He obtained and maintained sobriety without (presumably) a God.

He may have done it, but my comment, as you well know, was about AA being a religious organisation.

Here's a quote:

Originally Posted by Tinyal

I feel relatively qualified to comment on this subject: I've attended 1000's of AA & 100's of NA meetings over more than 21 years of soberiety. I've spoken at large AA conventions, medium sized Area functions, as well as many hundreds of smaller meetings - there was a period of nearly 12 years where I attended at least 6 and as many as 10 AA meetings every single week. I've long ago lost count of the number of people I've spoken to, with many in-depth conversations stretching over weeks, months, and years.
I still attend about once a week, at a small meeting where most of the members know I'm non-theist (and frequently outspoken whenever someone mentions something stupid like 'it's impossible to get sober without a higher power' , or 'there are no coincidences, only god at work', or tries to close a meeting with the lords prayer, or some such nonsense.) My reasons for still going? Primarily, they are to associate with friends I've known for decades, and to demonstrate to anyone willing to listen that they don't have to buy the AA higher power package to get - and stay - sober.
So much for my experience in AA - back to on topic:

In my view, AA is not only a religious organization, but fully meets the qualifications of a religious cult.

[Bamberger]

Originally Posted by gentlehorse

If they are not fully aware of the very broad spiritual latitude that is given, then that is exactly what I would say, unless, of course, I had reason to believe that the AA they experienced is completely and totally different from anything I've experienced. Always a possibility, I suppose-- I've only ever experienced AA in a small handful of states in the US, over a period of eight or so years. Taking my personal experience into consideration, I have to admit to taking what they have to say with a grain of salt.

Experience may vary on an individual basis, but the AA literature does not. Any meeting that uses the approved AA literature or that displays pamphlets, posters or banners that make mention of the 12 steps are religious in nature because such material make specific reference to a monotheistic entity called "God".

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by AlBell

I said exactly what I meant. The goal of AA is 'Stop Drinking', so none of the 7 remain a problem.


Er, yes, effective AA is exactly the bolded phrase.

And also yes, if the final two criteria are not The Problem, I'd agree AA is not for that person.

I don't think that you understand the diagnostic criteria, usually you will not have just three of the criteria and usuallty they will not just be the first three either. In practice in assesment and diagnosis people usually focus on teh behavioral impacts , so functioning in th tree life domains is the biggest criteria to look at.

But if it helps you to have such strict black and white thinking , more power to you.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I don't think that you understand the diagnostic criteria, usually you will not have just three of the criteria and usuallty they will not just be the first three either. In practice in assesment and diagnosis people usually focus on teh behavioral impacts , so functioning in th tree life domains is the biggest criteria to look at.

I don't think you read the studies, because they tend to mention "any" 3 of the 7 and are not forthcoming as to which 3 (or more, perhaps) they were using as the criteria.

We seem to agree behavior is the real key. And sure some of that occurs in the private behavior area; the AA definition of stinkin thinkin and HALT.

Quote:

But if it helps you to have such strict black and white thinking , more power to you.

Indeed I find alcoholism, as AA attempts to alleviate, to be just that without middle ground. It appears that middle ground of 'problem drinkers' is the only thing researchers study.

PDA and DDD greater than zero puts every alcoholic back in full-blown problems.

[DannyB II]

Originally Posted by Bamberger

Experience may vary on an individual basis, but the AA literature does not. Any meeting that uses the approved AA literature or that displays pamphlets, posters or banners that make mention of the 12 steps are religious in nature because such material make specific reference to a monotheistic entity called "God".

You seem to be the only one stunted by the AA literature. You want us to believe the the Author was speaking as "The Only Authority" (Professor) that the principles Bill was writing about should go unchallenged even though Bill W. himself states these were suggestive in nature. Your opinions here seem to want to pigeon hole us AA'ers, put us all in a box, one size fits all.
I just don't see the "AA" you are referring to.
Yes AA can be religious for the religious members.

[DannyB II]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinyal View Post
I feel relatively qualified to comment on this subject: I've attended 1000's of AA & 100's of NA meetings over more than 21 years of soberiety. I've spoken at large AA conventions, medium sized Area functions, as well as many hundreds of smaller meetings - there was a period of nearly 12 years where I attended at least 6 and as many as 10 AA meetings every single week. I've long ago lost count of the number of people I've spoken to, with many in-depth conversations stretching over weeks, months, and years.
I still attend about once a week, at a small meeting where most of the members know I'm non-theist (and frequently outspoken whenever someone mentions something stupid like 'it's impossible to get sober without a higher power' , or 'there are no coincidences, only god at work', or tries to close a meeting with the lords prayer, or some such nonsense.) My reasons for still going? Primarily, they are to associate with friends I've known for decades, and to demonstrate to anyone willing to listen that they don't have to buy the AA higher power package to get - and stay - sober.
So much for my experience in AA - back to on topic:

In my view, AA is not only a religious organization, but fully meets the qualifications of a religious cult.

Tinyal, can we please have some proof, maybe a citation where anyone can verify this latest judgment, AA is a religious cult.
I am agnostic (close to atheist) and I have never seen any proof to this claim in my 25 years of being affiliated with AA. I have been all over this country, Alaska and Hawaii, Mexico, South America, Europe, Southeast Asia, Russia and New Zealand. Never heard or read where anyone of intelligence has said AA is a religious cult.

[Bamberger]

Originally Posted by DannyB II

Your opinions here seem to want to pigeon hole us AA'ers, put us all in a box, one size fits all.
I just don't see the "AA" you are referring to.
Yes AA can be religious for the religious members.

When I discuss AA literature I am talking about, well, the literature, not the members. AA as an entity can be generalized as a religion based on its literature. Now if a particular group does not use the AA literature and abstains from praying then I would be apt to term that particular group as not religious. But realistically what percentage of groups world-wide meet such criteria? Wouldn't such groups be likely sooner or later to run afoul of AA as a whole? Isn't there something in the traditions to the effect that groups are autonomous except in matters that affect AA as a whole? I think the "God" question would qualify in this respect, don't you?

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Bamberger

When I discuss AA literature I am talking about, well, the literature, not the members. AA as an entity can be generalized as a religion based on its literature. Now if a particular group does not use the AA literature and abstains from praying then I would be apt to term that particular group as not religious. But realistically what percentage of groups world-wide meet such criteria? Wouldn't such groups be likely sooner or later to run afoul of AA as a whole? Isn't there something in the traditions to the effect that groups are autonomous except in matters that affect AA as a whole? I think the "God" question would qualify in this respect, don't you?

I think (assuming you think you may be an alcoholic) you should begin attending Closed Discussion meetings, and I then suspect you'll discover how wrong your analysis of AA actually is.

[gentlehorse]

Originally Posted by Bamberger

Experience may vary on an individual basis, but the AA literature does not. Any meeting that uses the approved AA literature or that displays pamphlets, posters or banners that make mention of the 12 steps are religious in nature because such material make specific reference to a monotheistic entity called "God".

?

I'm not sure why you choose post this in response to my post, as nothing I said in it, or anywhere else in this thread, could reasonably be interpreted to indicate anything to the contrary.

A.A. Alfie said that anyone who is actually in AA is fully aware of the very broad spiritual latitude that is given. Belz responded, saying that that seems like a bold claim, considering how many AAers have said the exact opposite in this thread. DannyB II responded to Belz, saying that every AA'er has been saying exactly what Alfie stated, to which Belz responded, saying, "So Tinyal and the others who have actually been in AA or around it don't know what they're talking about ?"

At this point I chimed in, saying that I take what Tinyal and some others have been saying with a grain of salt, because it is not consistent with my, admittedly limited (8+ years in the mid-south USA), experience of AA. I did not deny, and have not denied, the religious nature of much of what is in the big book and other AA literature.

I have, however, said that my personal lack of religion has not kept me from benefiting from participation in AA, probably because my priorities do not include passing judgement on the religious views of others, or the religious nature some of the AA literature. As I have no such agenda, I frankly couldn't possibly care less. It's not what I'm there for.

I have not been met with any religious requirements at AA. I receive and give support in the decision to remain sober. Some there are very religious. More power to them.