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

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

OH NO! I don't speak French! What will I do? I know...Google Translater

You heretic! How dare you use that demonic tool ?

[Gandalfs Beard]

By the way Alfie, I may be a resident of the US, but I was born and raised a Brit, and spent a couple of years in the Bahamas before being brought to the States by Mum. So nice try on the assumptions.

AA was founded in the US and has spread itself around the world through proselytizing. Just because AA's organization has spread around the globe doesn't make its language and doctrines any less religious.

You just happen to be fortunate enough to live in OZ, where (according to you at least) the Judicial System doesn't force people to attend AA (I'll try to confirm that with my Ozzie Cop internet pal).

And I DO give you credit for at least admitting that would be wrong.

However, that admission seems to me a tacit admission that AA is religious. Why else would it be wrong? Australia has it's own Establishment Clause in its Constitution, and I suspect the Government of Oz takes it more seriously than the US takes it.

GB

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by belz...

you heretic! How dare you use that demonic tool ?

gb

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Got any evidence that AA is not religious?

Is the religiousity of AA a falsifiable proposition? What would accomplish that? Evidence of people not praying? How many would it take? And how could we know for sure that they weren't praying? A person whose lips weren't moving might be praying silently, and, conversely, a person might be mouthing words without actually meaning any of it -- is that still praying? If I happen to mention God once or twice immediately after having dropped a hammer on my toe, does that constitute adequate evidence that I am a theist?

Quote:

I have little to no patience for this kind of crap.

I inferred as much; thanks for confirming.

Quote:

I made a HUGE mistake by allowing Dymanic to goad me into a thread derail with HIS Pseudo-Philosophical Crap. Well screw that. It's back to Brass Tacks and Evidence for me.

So you're gonna hit the ol' implicit ignore button and start responding to everything by just jumping up and down repeating "Got any EVIDENCE, Got any EVIDENCE" over and over and reposting the 12 Steps for the Nth time and dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as disingenuous?

Now that's going to be a tough adjustment to make.

Quote:

In the Case of AA, the Evidence truly does Speak for Itself.

Glad to also have confirmation that I have not misrepresented your position with the above analogy:

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the defendant's fingerprints are all over the murder weapon, therefore you have no choice but to find him guilty".

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Nice try. I think people still reading the thread will see through your attempt at deception, however.

Those who speculate that AA is religious do see things not apparent to most.

Quote:

You have succeeded, mind you, at erasing any doubt left in my mind about your dishonesty.

Doesn't take much to move you from speculation to a Belz Fact does it?

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

Is the religiousity of AA a falsifiable proposition?

YES!

Quote:

What would accomplish that? Evidence of people not praying? How many would it take? And how could we know for sure that they weren't praying? A person whose lips weren't moving might be praying silently, and, conversely, a person might be mouthing words without actually meaning any of it -- is that still praying? If I happen to mention God once or twice immediately after having dropped a hammer on my toe, does that constitute adequate evidence that I am a theist?

Your Honour, I am NOT attempting to convict Dymanic of being a Theist. But I WILL prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he belongs to a Religious Organization known by the name of Alcoholics Anonymous.

How will I do that you ask? The same way I can prove beyond a Reasonable Doubt that many non-praying/praying silently/word-mouthing/God mentioning once or twice (especially after dropping hammers on their toes) people belong to other Religious Organizations such as The Catholic Church, The Nation of Islam, Vedic sects of Tantric Hinduism, The Southern Baptist Church, The Anglican Communion/ The Unitarian Universalists and many others far too numerous to mention.

Your Honour, I cannot rely on the word of individual adherents, as their own personal views vary widely from those who merely attend to demonstrate propriety without actually believing in either the doctrines and/or the Deity of their chosen Religious Organization, to those that Fundamentally believe that every word of their sacred texts must be taken as Literal Truth.

Thus, as with any religious organization, I must rely on the words of their Sacred Texts, and the Historical Record of the Organization, the Biographies of the founders and the texts of the Founders Letters and Ancillary Writings, and Legal Precedence including the upholding of the Second Circuit's decision by the US Supreme Court establishing the the Religiosity of AA.

Your Honour, I have submitted to you numerous briefs over the course of 61 pages of this thread containing this evidence, as has Tinyal and other members of our legal team.

Quote:

Quote:

In the Case of AA, the Evidence truly does Speak for Itself.

Glad to also have confirmation that I have not misrepresented your position with the above analogy:

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the defendant's fingerprints are all over the murder weapon, therefore you have no choice but to find him guilty".

Finally your Honour, the opposition attorney has deliberately misrepresented our case using specious analogies, and has deliberately discounted all the relevant evidence.

He claims that all we have are Fingerprints.

Yet as the submitted briefs have shown, our legal team also has DNA evidence, Ancillary Forensic Evidence, the Testimony of the Founders, the Historical Record, and Legal precedence.

GB

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Those who speculate that AA is religious do see things not apparent to most.



Doesn't take much to move you from speculation to a Belz Fact does it?

That's right, Al. Keep digging that hole.

[Lard2010]

Forgive me for a slightly tangential post, but...

Magnus Huss coined the term 'alcoholism' in 1849. How did we get from that to the word 'alcoholic' to refer to a habitual inebriate?

'Alcoholic' should be reserved as a term describing the properties of a drink, not a person. We don't call a smoker a 'nicotinic', nor a junkie a 'heroinic'.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Lard2010

Forgive me for a slightly tangential post, but...

Magnus Huss coined the term 'alcoholism' in 1849. How did we get from that to the word 'alcoholic' to refer to a habitual inebriate?

'Alcoholic' should be reserved as a term describing the properties of a drink, not a person. We don't call a smoker a 'nicotinic', nor a junkie a 'heroinic'.

Welcome Lard2010!

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Actually the question mark at the end should have been an indication that it was a question, not a "demand".

But I think there is a difference between a simple mistake and personal abuse. But that's just my opinion, I guess. If it had been just a "mistake", no doubt you would have left it in the thread - but I see it is gone.

But like I said, apologising is what adults do.

This is pathetic. Where's your public inquiry about AlBell's apologies to all those he directly attacked in this thread (which I quoted so there's no confusion)?

Or yours?

The hypocrisy astounds me sometimes.

Originally Posted by AlBell

Much of that was provided by those who are not alcoholics, and/or have not attended even one AA meeting.

What weight would you normally ascribe to this type of speculation?

This is a form of ad hominem attack; the merits of the argument are either valid or not. It is irrelevant who is proposing the argument. This also ignores the same (or similar) arguments made by those who are alcoholics/addicts and/or have attended one, a dozen, a hundred or thousands of AA meetings.

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

You have cited the big book as proof, yet wish not to look at other evidence that suggests otherwise - again, who is being dishonest? Moreover, the irony is not losyt on me that the big book proves your belief that AA is religious. The big book is one man's experience strength and hope. It is a nice historical document that documents the early recovery of the founders.

These statements are 100% true, and (unlike some) whilst I wish not to travel over old ground, it has already been shown that a HP does not need to be a deity, and spirituality has a variety of definitions.

AA has evolved since inception those early members are relative novices compared to those we have on offer today. AA is collective wisdom, not one man's experience.

The big book is far more than one man's experience, strength and hope. If that were true, there'd be only Chapter One. It's completely disingenuous to claim that AA has evolved since inception -- I've quoted the preface which explicitly states that the first 154 pages are not to be edited or changed and why they have not been changed.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

This is pathetic. Where's your public inquiry about AlBell's apologies to all those he directly attacked in this thread (which I quoted so there's no confusion)?

Which one have you quoted?

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Or yours?

For what exactly?

Originally Posted by The Norseman

This is a form of ad hominem attack; the merits of the argument are either valid or not. It is irrelevant who is proposing the argument. This also ignores the same (or similar) arguments made by those who are alcoholics/addicts and/or have attended one, a dozen, a hundred or thousands of AA meetings.

If you consider that ad hom, I suggest you toughen up a bit.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

The big book is far more than one man's experience, strength and hope. If that were true, there'd be only Chapter One. It's completely disingenuous to claim that AA has evolved since inception -- I've quoted the preface which explicitly states that the first 154 pages are not to be edited or changed and why they have not been changed.

Are you saying AA hasn't evolved?
Or that Bill thought his way and word was the only one?

The 154 pages have not been changed in much the same way that the original text of (say) Darwins theory of evolution has not been changed. The book itslef is of historical and practical value, sure, but it is far from being some holy orders that you seem to imply it is.

[Halfcentaur]

The misconception that a life without a clear theme is not just as important as someone who decided to live their life around a theme is a frustrating thing to me, and even more sad to me than someone with no importance in their life. Choosing an arbitrary delusion isn't more meaningful than choosing to be liberated from arbitrary delusion, all that really seems important is if your life is important to you or not. A god or spiritual theme is not automatically important, and the only thing can make meaning meaningful is how important you find it to be.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Which one have you quoted?

Post 2322.

Quote:

For what exactly?

For your poor behavior and sarcastic remarks that you later defended by claiming that you only give back what you receive. Not very adult like, IMO.

Quote:

If you consider that ad hom, I suggest you toughen up a bit.

It wasn't aimed at me -- or at least, I never read it as being aimed at me. It is a logical fallacy in trying to discredit an argument (that AA is religious) by stating that the person putting forth the argument isn't qualified to put forth that argument (because they aren't in AA nor are an alcoholic).

Quote:

Are you saying AA hasn't evolved?
Or that Bill thought his way and word was the only one?

The 154 pages have not been changed in much the same way that the original text of (say) Darwins theory of evolution has not been changed. The book itslef is of historical and practical value, sure, but it is far from being some holy orders that you seem to imply it is.

You've pointed out many times that you find it hard to believe that in the United States, there are people who believe just that -- that the big book is a book of holy orders. Nevertheless, there isn't a monolithic World Organization regarding Darwin and his book which has steadfastly refused to change anything about the first 154 pages even though the statements that have been made about "changing the big book to more accurately represent the membership" is seemingly factually incorrect. (There are no stories of atheists for example and I've never read one story about a so-called agnostic who didn't convert to a belief in God. And by "stories" I'm referring to the AA Grapevine as well as the big book itself, printed by the AA World Organization.)

[Hallo Alfie]

So we should change Darwin's book now because the theory has evolved and grown? Because people have piggy-backed their own ideas on the original. Or does Darwin set down a set of beliefs that can be expanded?

On the grapevive issue, I would suggest you aren't looking hard enough nor in enough places, if nothing ever showed an atheist or agnostic perspective. Indeed, there are stories right in this thread.

And on giving what I get. Too bad.
That said, if someone takes offence and I did not intend it, you may have noted I make an apology - I seem to recall giving you one too (I may be wrong). As I say, that's what adults do when they are wrong and admit it. I feel no need to apologise to someone for giving them a bit if lip when I respond in kind, that may not be adult, but I am certainly not sorry about it.
You seem to be mistaking me for a xstian that happily turns the other cheek; that is not me mate.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

If you consider that ad hom, I suggest you toughen up a bit.

Er... do you know what an ad hominem is ?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

So we should change Darwin's book now because the theory has evolved and grown?

Are there some people who actually quote from Darwin's book anymore, and use it in arguments for evolution ?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Are there some people who actually quote from Darwin's book anymore, and use it in arguments for evolution ?

You tell me; I tend not to get involved with evolution discussions. The use of the book was simply an example. Can I get you a net?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

You tell me; I tend not to get involved with evolution discussions. The use of the book was simply an example. Can I get you a net?

I understand that it's an example, but at least use an example that is somewhat analogous.

[AlBell]

Is that just 'speculation' or is it being presented as a 'Belz Fact'?

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

So we should change Darwin's book now because the theory has evolved and grown? Because people have piggy-backed their own ideas on the original. Or does Darwin set down a set of beliefs that can be expanded?

I don't know much of his book at all; certainly I know less about Darwin's book than I do Bill W's.

Quote:

On the grapevive issue, I would suggest you aren't looking hard enough nor in enough places, if nothing ever showed an atheist or agnostic perspective. Indeed, there are stories right in this thread.

Do you read or have you ever thoroughly read the AA Grapevine? That's specifically what I'm referring to, not posters in this thread. I'm specifying the AA Grapevine as it is an Official AA World Organization monthly publication which, so far to my knowledge, has never printed a story by a successful (i.e., in sobriety) atheist nor an agnostic who did not also go onto rediscovering God as his/her higher power.

Quote:

And on giving what I get. Too bad.
That said, if someone takes offence and I did not intend it, you may have noted I make an apology - I seem to recall giving you one too (I may be wrong). As I say, that's what adults do when they are wrong and admit it. I feel no need to apologise to someone for giving them a bit if lip when I respond in kind, that may not be adult, but I am certainly not sorry about it.
You seem to be mistaking me for a xstian that happily turns the other cheek; that is not me mate.

This is the second time you've done the old "I'm not what you think I am" line on me when I have never claimed nor thought that you were a Xian. In most respects, I really couldn't care less that you attack others -- what I do care about is when you hypocritically expect me to apologize for something which you clearly are not willing to do and then imply that I'm not being adultlike in not apologizing.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Is that just 'speculation' or is it being presented as a 'Belz Fact'?

You think me telling Alfie to present proper analogies could be a "fact" ? No. I think you're just in assault mode, right now, and nothing you say has any value so long as you don't step out of it.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Er... do you know what an ad hominem is ?

Still no word on that, Alfie.

[Hallo Alfie]

Any chance of you toughening up yet, Belz? Or are you still sooking about being asked to apologise?

Anyhow, back on topic.... do you think that we should change all of humankinds history books? Should we simply change what happened to Bill W (et al), as they reported it? What about some of Freuds books, perhaps we could change them? What about just rewriting history alltogether, no more slavery, no wars, no religions, no genocide, no science, no education, no anything.
That way we could accommodate all your sensibilities.

Actually, why not forget history all together, and pretend that everything today, was always like that?

And while you are wanting to change the history of AA and the big book, perhaps you could tell us exactly why we should.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Anyhow, back on topic.... do you think that we should change all of humankinds history books? Should we simply change what happened to Bill W (et al), as they reported it? What about some of Freuds books, perhaps we could change them? What about just rewriting history alltogether, no more slavery, no wars, no religions, no genocide, no science, no education, no anything.
That way we could accommodate all your sensibilities.

Actually, why not forget history all together, and pretend that everything today, was always like that?

Strawman. No one has asked you to do any such thing. We don't care that the history hasn't changed. We only care that the organization AA hasn't changed and thus, is just as religious as when it first started.

Actually, why not forget history all together, and pretend that everything today, was always like that?

Quote:

And while you are wanting to change the history of AA and the big book, perhaps you could tell us exactly why we should.

You should change simply to prevent being a liar. Of professing one thing while practicing another. Even a organization working with children understands such a simple concept and changed but AA, working with adults, can't figure that out.

Is there something about adults, alcoholics, or AA that makes them unable to understand simple concepts?

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

And while you are wanting to change the history of AA and the big book, perhaps you could tell us exactly why we should.

I believe we're hearing a request to replace the word 'god' with 'The Trinity of GB-BZ-QK'.

Why? Because it's more fun to play in someone else's business than tend to one's own.

[1337m4n]

So remind me again how exactly this doesn't qualify as "religious"?

[AlBell]

For you, and a few others who seem worried about it, it's Religious.

For me, and others, it isn't.

We can agree to disagree.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by AlBell

For you, and a few others who seem worried about it, it's Religious.

For me, and others, it isn't.

We can agree to disagree.

Whether or not one agrees to disagree, the language and the doctrines of your Sacred Texts are clearly religious. What you're doing is like claiming that the distinction between Creationism/Intelligent Design and Natural Selection is merely a matter of opinion rather than fact (it's not by the way ).

Claiming that those who disagree with you are "worried" about it is likewise just as Specious on a forum which is intended for arguing points of fact.

GB

[qayak]

Originally Posted by AlBell

For you, and a few others who seem worried about it, it's Religious.

For me, and others, it isn't.

We can agree to disagree.

No, we can only agree to let you go on with your mistaken beliefs. This isn't a disagreement, it is a case of your being wrong.

[AlBell]

Not deluded now, huh?

Make up your mind.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Not deluded now, huh?

Make up your mind.

Whatever the cause, you're still wrong.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by AlBell

For you, and a few others who seem worried about it, it's Religious.

For me, and others, it isn't.

We can agree to disagree.

It's not so much different from asking: "Can participants in JREF forum discussions be assumed to be practitioners of critical thinking?"

(Answer: not necessarily).

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

It's not so much different from asking: "Can participants in JREF forum discussions be assumed to be practitioners of critical thinking?"

(Answer: not necessarily).

So, you ask if members of the JREF think in a particular way as an analogy. What are you trying to say about the way AA members think? That they all make the same mistakes of logic and change the meaning of words to suit their purpose?

We know that isn't true as many members of AA in this thread admit it is religious. It is only a select few who deny against all evidence that it is.

I think a better analogy is to ask: If a JREF member says they think critically but then, through non-critical examples, demonstrates otherwise is it the same as a AA member who claims to be atheist/agnostic but then, through expressed religious beliefs, demonstrates otherwise?

Answer: Absolutely.

Not only that but a select group of JREF members who are also members of AA demonstrate both non-critical thinking and religious belief, even though they profess to think critically and be agnostics/atheists.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by AlBell

For you, and a few others who seem worried about it, it's Religious.

Worried?? I can hardly maintain sufficient interest to participate in this thread. The reason I originally started posting was because I found it completely unbelievable that anyone would deny the obvious connection between AA and religion. Why some would deny this connection...I have no idea. Since those who maintain no connection between AA and religion DID NOT arrive at that conclusion by reason, no amount of reasoning will change their minds...making this thread a pointless endeavour.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

The reason I originally started posting was because I found it completely unbelievable that anyone would deny the obvious connection between AA and religion.

The question at issue is not whether there is a connection between AA and religion.

[AlBell]

deleted

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Worried?? I can hardly maintain sufficient interest to participate in this thread. The reason I originally started posting was because I found it completely unbelievable that anyone would deny the obvious connection between AA and religion. Why some would deny this connection...I have no idea. Since those who maintain no connection between AA and religion DID NOT arrive at that conclusion by reason, no amount of reasoning will change their minds...making this thread a pointless endeavour.

Funnily enough, I actually see the reasoning that you, Belz et al are using. I also see how the evidence can readily suggest that AA would have to be religious.

However, there are a number of things that allow the end user to decide for themselves what they do with this one aspect of the program, these include:

- sufficient 'wriggle room' in the steps and literature for any member to make the decision on whether or not to apply the religious component to their own recovery.
- the steps are suggestions.
- the choice to mix and match what works for you.
- God can mean anything that might work for the individual (including the Christian god)
- the definition between spiritual and religious (not seen by those on your side)
- it is a spiritual program, not religious.

There are many more that actually answer the OP's question and show that while AA can certainly be religious, that does not meant that it is.


Now, on another matter, how's my respect coming?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Any chance of you toughening up yet, Belz? Or are you still sooking about being asked to apologise?

Did you look up the definition of "ad hominem" yet ?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...45a83f2d06.jpg

So remind me again how exactly this doesn't qualify as "religious"?

For you, and a few others who seem worried about it, it's Religious.

For me, and others, it isn't.

We can agree to disagree.

The question is: does it fit the definition or not ?

Personally defining "red" to mean "blue" doesn't suddenly mean that a person's claim that "this apple is red" is false.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

The question at issue is not whether there is a connection between AA and religion.

That's an odd thing to say, since the question at issue is whether AA is religious. I would think that this requires a connection between AA and religion.