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

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

Because in AA, the "belief" aspect is neither shared nor specific

Well, if it's not specific it's because of people who constantly redefine terms into uselessness.

Quote:

"Out here in South Africa,"

Hooray, South-African AA is more tolerant than AA in other places. Good for them, actually.

Quote:

It's already been noted that as long as we AGREE to use the same definition, we can communicate effectively. Now what we got here is, failure to communicate -- but it's worse than that. We haven't even reached a consensus on whether this is a simple exercise in the proper use of english words, or a philosophical investigation into the underlying meanings of the words we use. If it is the former, then your objection may be sustained. But if it is the latter, my attempt at defining "religious" in a more exacting way may be allowed.

Tell you what: why don't we simply NOT try to define "religious", go with the definitions from the dictionary, and explain why people insist that AA is not religious ?

Quote:

The problem (for you) is that a great many other things are as well. "Acknowledge" as the "ultimate reality" the nature and origin of the universe as described by the Big Bang Theory and Einsteinian relativity, and you've just become "religious" under at least one of the above definitions.

Amazing. You are so desperate to "win" this thread that you have now crossed into complete nonsense territory.

There IS NO ultimate reality in science. No supernatural entities, no paranormal events. You are AGAIN broadening all definitions to ensure that, if AA is religious, everything else is. Your entire strategy in this thread has been nothing but muddle the issue. When it's not redefining terms into uselessness, it's attempts at equivocation like the one above.

[Ben Adams]

Quote:

Which god? Did you find him/her/it at AA meetings?

Of course not don't be silly............

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Ben Adams

Of course not don't be silly............

Please take your own advice. Maybe the humor section is what you're looking for.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Well, if it's not specific it's because of people who constantly redefine terms into uselessness.

I disagree. In AA, the belief aspect is not merely non-specific, but explicity so.

Quote:

Hooray, South-African AA is more tolerant than AA in other places. Good for them, actually.

It has been noted many, many times in this thread that AA is very much subject to local variation. Hence, making sweeping statements regarding AA as a whole is a dubious undertaking at best.

Quote:

Tell you what: why don't we simply NOT try to define "religious", go with the definitions from the dictionary, and explain why people insist that AA is not religious ?

In the first place, because "going with the definitions from the dictionary" IS an attempt at defining "religious"; just a rather feeble one -- and in the second place, because it does not reflect a sincere interest in attempting to actually answer the question at hand.

Quote:

There IS NO ultimate reality in science.

Arguably true -- but that isn't a barrier to some poorly informed person adopting the stance that there is -- leaving open the question of whether such a person deserves to be called "religious" even though his adopting that stance meets one of the above definitions of that word.

Quote:

You are AGAIN broadening all definitions to ensure that, if AA is religious, everything else is.

Not guilty. My name is neither Merriam nor Webster, nor was I consulted in the compiling of the dictionary definitionS YOU provided above. I am merely pointing out that regardless of whether it is "useful" to your purpose here, those definitions easily subsume some things that are clearly NOT religious in the context of this discussion. Don't shoot the messenger.

Quote:

Your entire strategy in this thread has been nothing but muddle the issue.

Again, not guilty. You started out muddled, and have done a pretty good job of staying that way despite some rather energetic attempts to provide clarification -- suggesting that you never really were very interested in answers to the OP's question, having already made your mind up before the thread was ever started. I see nothing to gain by either confusing you or convincing you; carry your biases and misconceptions to the grave if you want; it's no skin off my ass.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

The problem (for you) is that a great many other things are as well. "Acknowledge" as the "ultimate reality" the nature and origin of the universe as described by the Big Bang Theory and Einsteinian relativity, and you've just become "religious" under at least one of the above definitions.

I just gotta love the way you use the Creationist's Straw Man arguments to blur the distinction between science and religion. Why do you keep trying to argue that AA is not religious by using Religious Apologist tactics?

GB

[Ben Adams]

Quote:

Please take your own advice. Maybe the humor section is what you're looking for

Now THAT'S FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!

You really need to stop giving people advice.

[AlBell]

Welcome to <plonk>

[Ben Adams]

The only place to find God.........

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Belz...

And also

Actually, my point should have been quite clear even to the dimmest of minds. AAers say it is a spritual program, not religious. That is the short answer to the OP.
Investigating both words would be the honest approach to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Hooray, South-African AA is more tolerant than AA in other places. Good for them, actually.

Again, I think you miss the point. It was stated earlier that there are no articles anywhere (Grapevine) from people who haven't found god in their recovery. Obviously there are.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Actually, my point should have been quite clear even to the dimmest of minds. AAers say it is a spritual program, not religious. That is the short answer to the OP.
Investigating both words would be the honest approach to the discussion.

Quote:

1spir·i·tu·al adj
\ˈspir-i-chə-wəl, -i-chəl, -ich-wəl\
Definition of SPIRITUAL

1
: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>
2
a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs>
b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3
: concerned with religious values
4
: related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5
a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic

Sure, AA is Spiritual. Religious Organizations like AA are also Spiritual by definition.

But when your Sacred Texts refer constantly to a Deity and the attendant Religious Doctrines, claiming that they are "Spiritual but not Religious" is a lie.

GB

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

Because in AA, the "belief" aspect is neither shared nor specific -- nor even necessarily supernatural. One member writes:

"Out here in South Africa, many of our city meetings are multi-faith -- a Xhosa member the other night invoked the help of a family ancestor. Younger members are Buddhist or Sufi, some are animist, and many are secular and consider themselves to be in recovery from the abuses of missionary Christianity. Others are Christian, not a majority and generally they seem far more tolerant and accepting than is the case elsewhere. I am not anti-religious, I come from a multifaith perspective and so long as no particular group tries to impose their Higher Power on everyone else, there is no problem. We don't end meetings with the Lord's Prayer because others might want to say prayers to their particular deities and there isn't time. Furthermore, the saying aloud of specific prayers would exclude the agnostics and atheists in the meetings and that is unacceptable."

So your "...nor even necessarily supernatural" example is one filled with... the supernatural?

Oh, but they don't close the meeting with the Lord's Prayer so obviously, they're not religious. And the only reason this fellow's group does not close with the Lord's Prayer? Because there's not enough time to recite everyone else's prayers too, not because there's no need for them in the first place.

To be fair, he does go on to say that saying prayers (multiple ones) would be exclusive of those with a non-theistic bent. I sure wish the United States would be so thoughtful as that in the meetings I've attended.

Or maybe the AA World Organization could change their official texts to be more inclusive!

What a novel concept! But, nah.

It's also interesting to me to note that while AA and 12step meetings have been declared by some courts to be religious enough to run afoul of the 1st Amendment, that Rational Recovery, SOS, and LifeRing (for example) have never had these same problems, yet they all seem to claim that they're not religious.

How would one suggest I go about testing the various claims made by these organizations?

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Again, I think you miss the point. It was stated earlier that there are no articles anywhere (Grapevine) from people who haven't found god in their recovery. Obviously there are.

Tell me page number and issue number of an AA Grapevine article written by an atheist that you've read. Point out to me a story in the back of the big book, any edition, which does the same.

I never made the claim that there are no stories of sober atheists in AA. I made the claim that the AA World Organization has never once published a story of a sober atheist in any official publication.

My point being that in seventy years, the leaders of the AA organization are perfectly happy with it being a religious organization trying to hide under the vague concept of Higher Powers and cafeteria-style "take whatever you want" so-called spirituality.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Sure, AA is Spiritual. Religious Organizations like AA are also Spiritual by definition.

But when your Sacred Texts refer constantly to a Deity and the attendant Religious Doctrines, claiming that they are "Spiritual but not Religious" is a lie.

The argument Alfie is hiding behind is pretty silly. It's like a national security agency deciding the threat level is yellow because the threat fits the definition of yellow but failing to recognize (refusing in Alfie's case) that the threat also fits the definition of a red alert.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Oh, but they don't close the meeting with the Lord's Prayer so obviously, they're not religious. And the only reason this fellow's group does not close with the Lord's Prayer? Because there's not enough time to recite everyone else's prayers too, not because there's no need for them in the first place.

I have never ever been at a meeting that recites the lords prayer. I asssume that goes for the entirety of Australia, I have been to meetings in every single state.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

I never made the claim that there are no stories of sober atheists in AA. I made the claim that the AA World Organization has never once published a story of a sober atheist in any official publication.

So the grapevine isn't an official AA publication?

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

I have never ever been at a meeting that recites the lords prayer. I asssume that goes for the entirety of Australia, I have been to meetings in every single state.

Great. It's been my experience that it's been the opposite; I think there was one meeting which didn't recite the Lord's Prayer at the meetings' close.

Quote:

So the grapevine isn't an official AA publication?

Yes, it is. Do you have any evidence to show that my contention is mistaken? Like I said, I've never found one letter yet.

[Hallo Alfie]

[quote=The Norseman;6536131] Great. It's been my experience that it's been the opposite; I think there was one meeting which didn't recite the Lord's Prayer at the meetings' close. [/quote0

Precisely my point. It proves that at local level, the locals make their own rules for their own meeting.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Yes, it is. Do you have any evidence to show that my contention is mistaken? Like I said, I've never found one letter yet.

In answer to that question we need to ask where Dynamic got that South African members' quote. I did make a mistake there btw - I thought I read/assumed it was from the grapevine.

That said, I have read the experience, strength and hope of members who have found sobriety without a traditional god in the grapevine (and elsewhere). But even when that is provided, what would it prove to you?

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Great. It's been my experience that it's been the opposite; I think there was one meeting which didn't recite the Lord's Prayer at the meetings' close.

Precisely my point. It proves that at local level, the locals make their own rules for their own meeting.

I for one, have never argued that the locals didn't "make their own rules" per se.

My issue is that they mostly continue to use the same 12 Steps and the Big Book promulgated by the Central Organization, which rather undercuts the notion that they really are "making their own rules."

I did point out, and post, earlier on this thread the Secular 12 Steps. While it is certainly an improvement, it demonstrates that the religious doctrines are still the same; changing "God" and "Power greater than ourselves" to "The Group" doesn't fundamentally alter the doctrines, it justs masks the Religious context far better than "as we understood."

I'm not sure how much of an improvement that really is though, as masking the religious context of the Doctrines just allows people to internalize the doctrines without really understanding where they come from. Much like the Secular Puritanism involved in the Drug War. In other words, Protestant values become so ubiquitous that they form the background assumptions that shape our perspective of reality, and frame the debate.

Nor have I yet to see evidence that the Secular 12 Steps have been widely adopted in the US. But that's not really a surprise as the US population really is more religiously inclined than those of many other Western Secular Nations--which is a fair point that you have made Alfie.

I doubt you'd be able to provide any solid stats Alfie, but I'd be curious to find out if you have actually come across any Australian Locals that use the Secular 12 Steps rather than the GSO approved Traditional Religious 12 Steps.

GB

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Precisely my point. It proves that at local level, the locals make their own rules for their own meeting.

Sure. It proves that some local groups don't follow the program as laid out by Bill W. and the other founders and some local groups just make it up as they go.

Quote:

That said, I have read the experience, strength and hope of members who have found sobriety without a traditional god in the grapevine (and elsewhere). But even when that is provided, what would it prove to you?

It would help prove that the AA World Organization is serious that they're willing to make changes to help include their non-religious, non-spirituality-believing members.

It would help dispel the idea that they're a religious organization by including people who are successful models of SOBRIETY and not just successful models of sobriety through religious methods.

But that would mean that the AA World Organization will have to go against all of what Bill W. wrote and envisioned for this group as a whole and how he thinks sobriety can be reached.

After seventy years, we now know of more effective ways to reach and maintain sobriety (CBT for example) that happen to be secular; yet for all the protestations that AA's only goal is to help alcoholics achieve sobriety, there has been no change whatsoever in the core steps, traditions, or processes.

[Hallo Alfie]

[quote=The Norseman;6536355] Sure. It proves that some local groups don't follow the program as laid out by Bill W. and the other founders and some local groups just make it up as they go.


Er, actually the traditions cover that and the groups are following the program as laid out by the founders. Here's a sample ...

http://www.aa.org.au/members/twelve-traditions.php

3. Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought AA membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an AA group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation.

4. With respect to its own affairs, each AA group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighbouring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect AA as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

It would help prove that the AA World Organization is serious that they're willing to make changes to help include their non-religious, non-spirituality-believing members.

There is no need, the non religious members (I do not know of any member who considers themselves "non-spiritual") understand there is no requirement for God in their life. As anecdotal evidence from myself will be disbelieved, can you believe Tinyal?

Originally Posted by The Norseman

It would help dispel the idea that they're a religious organization by including people who are successful models of SOBRIETY and not just successful models of sobriety through religious methods.

Like the people sharing at AA meetings you mean?

Originally Posted by The Norseman

But that would mean that the AA World Organization will have to go against all of what Bill W. wrote and envisioned for this group as a whole and how he thinks sobriety can be reached.

Um, no. It wouldn't.
He outlined what he did, and makes suggestions. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

After seventy years, we now know of more effective ways to reach and maintain sobriety (CBT for example) that happen to be secular; yet for all the protestations that AA's only goal is to help alcoholics achieve sobriety, there has been no change whatsoever in the core steps, traditions, or processes.

More effective?
Cool. Can you furnish stats on CBT please?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

I disagree. In AA, the belief aspect is not merely non-specific, but explicity so.

"God as you understand Him" is not specific ? News to me.

Quote:

It has been noted many, many times in this thread that AA is very much subject to local variation. Hence, making sweeping statements regarding AA as a whole is a dubious undertaking at best.

And yet you're trying to show that AA isn't religious based on South-African AA or other single-cases.

Quote:

In the first place, because "going with the definitions from the dictionary" IS an attempt at defining "religious"

That is so silly that I don't even know where to start. NOT defining something is really defining it ?

Quote:

Arguably true -- but that isn't a barrier to some poorly informed person adopting the stance that there is -- leaving open the question of whether such a person deserves to be called "religious" even though his adopting that stance meets one of the above definitions of that word.

No.

Quote:

Not guilty. My name is neither Merriam nor Webster, nor was I consulted in the compiling of the dictionary definitionS YOU provided above. I am merely pointing out that regardless of whether it is "useful" to your purpose here, those definitions easily subsume some things that are clearly NOT religious in the context of this discussion. Don't shoot the messenger.

Wait, what ? First, do you really think that you can make up definitions for words ? Do you think this is a good way of communicating if no one uses the same definitions ? And why does this only happen in debates ? Second, how is AA NOT religious under those definitions ? Your reply about science being a religion under the same definitions seemed to be a implicit agreement that it was; otherwise why use it ?

Quote:

Again, not guilty. You started out muddled, and have done a pretty good job of staying that way despite some rather energetic attempts to provide clarification

We've already covered this. You simply didn't understand what I said.

Quote:

suggesting that you never really were very interested in answers to the OP's question, having already made your mind up before the thread was ever started.

I had a tentative conclusion and was willing to be proven wrong. Since you have no evidence, however, and rely on semantics only, you're not likely to change my mind.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Actually, my point should have been quite clear even to the dimmest of minds. AAers say it is a spritual program, not religious. That is the short answer to the OP.

And is crap. How is "spiritual" and "religious" so different ?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Belz...

And is crap.

As usual I am completely defenseless against by your well thought out and insightful arguments.

Originally Posted by Belz...

How is "spiritual" and "religious" so different ?

And again, this is precisely my point. There is a substantial difference between the two. Unfortunately you don't seem able to distinguish said difference hence my recent request that the definitions to religious and spiritual be looked at.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by Belz...

"God as you understand Him" is not specific ?

Explicitly non-specific. The opposite of dogma, defined as "a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from by the practioner or believers". Do you accept that definition of "dogma"?

Quote:

NOT defining something is really defining it ?

Posting a dictionary definition is "NOT defining something"?

Quote:

First, do you really think that you can make up definitions for words ?

When the words we're using have multiple senses (as so many do), I consider it not merely permissible to at least clarify which sense we're using, but obligatory. Practical lexicography is the art or craft of compiling, writing and editing dictionaries. It does not involve "making up" definitions for words, but merely finding those definitions which best represent the way words are used in the language. Dictionaries do not dictate usage, they follow it. Any assumptions contained in that usage, be they dualistic, idealistic, anthropomorphic, teleological, theological, astrological, or what-have-you, it is not the business of the practical lexicographer to unpack and examine them. That work is left to philosophers -- and since Wittgenstein, (analytic) philosophers are no longer allowed to "make stuff up"; facts are provided by science, and philosophers help to interpret them (with considerable emphasis on the language used in describing the findings).

Quote:

Second, how is AA NOT religious under those definitions ?

Try reading it again. I wasn't saying that.

Quote:

Your reply about science being a religion under the same definitions seemed to be a implicit agreement that it was; otherwise why use it ?

I can't believe you don't get this. I am saying that a scientific or philosophical stance can be subsumed under some of the above definitions of "religious". Is that me saying that science is religion? No. It's me saying that taking all of those senses of the word as THE definition of "religious" results in a definition too broad to be useful here.

Quote:

I had a tentative conclusion and was willing to be proven wrong. Since you have no evidence, however, and rely on semantics only, you're not likely to change my mind.

Identifying points of agreement is about the best we're likely to do here. If you think this whole thing is not an exercise in sematics (the study of meaning), then let's see how an "evidence only" approach works when applied to something simpler. We all know what the word "bald" means. Based on evidence only, define the boundaries of "the set of all bald guys".

[tsig]

[quote=A.A.Alfie;6536284]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Great. It's been my experience that it's been the opposite; I think there was one meeting which didn't recite the Lord's Prayer at the meetings' close. [/quote0

Precisely my point. It proves that at local level, the locals make their own rules for their own meeting.



In answer to that question we need to ask where Dynamic got that South African members' quote. I did make a mistake there btw - I thought I read/assumed it was from the grapevine.

That said, I have read the experience, strength and hope of members who have found sobriety without a traditional god in the grapevine (and elsewhere). But even when that is provided, what would it prove to you?

So do Baptists but they're still a religion.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

3. Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought AA membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an AA group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation.

4. With respect to its own affairs, each AA group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighbouring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect AA as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.

I'm a little confused about how these ideas hang together. If each AA group is free to do its own thing (subject only(?) to the "no other affiliation" rule), then how could the actions of any one group "greatly affect AA as a whole"? I mean, other than some rather absurd hypotheticals (the AA group in Springfield decides to picket the meetings of the Shelbyville AA group).

I suppose tradition three also implies that AA groups must also "refuse none who wish to recover" and not require "money or conformity." And some of the other traditions seem to state requirements as well -- #10 seems rather absolute on "outside controversial issues"). But then, if those rules are absolute, then what is the point in "consulting" or "conferring" with other groups or the trustees?

I'm not really trying to make any particular point in this post; I'm just not seeing how this all hangs together. What are the kinds of things that an individual group has had to consult on?

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by Belz...

How is "spiritual" and "religious" so different ?

GB's carefully cherry-picked definition of the word "spiritual" was obviously intended to support the contention that these are equivalent. Even this was not entirely successful; for one thing, though (as I have argued) "supernatural" beliefs are an indispensible aspect of religiousity, not everything "related to supernatural beings or phenomena" easily qualifies as religious. What about beliefs in such things as ghosts, or dowsing, or astrology?

That defect aside, we're talking about common usage here, so we need to include other ways in which this word is used, not merely the ones that GB thinks will help his case.

Some other definitions (or senses) available from online dictionaries include:

1.of the spirit or the soul as distinguished from the body or material matters
2.of, from, or concerned with the intellect; intellectual
3.of or consisting of spirit; not corporeal
4.characterized by the ascendancy of the spirit; showing much refinement of thought and feeling

Now, we could go off on tangents having to do with the validity of the underlying assumptions reflected in some of these definitions (and in fact, we have done some of that in this thread), but we don't really need to do that in order to determine whether these definitions are valid representations of ways in which the word "spiritual" is used in the language. Is there good empirical evidence for the existence of a "soul", or a "self", or an "intellect", or a "personality", or a "consciousness", or a "spirit"? Doesn't matter. What we're interested in here is what people mean when they use those words. The meanings of the meanings? Possibly interesting, but not critical to answering the question at issue.

These people who say that AA is not religious, or that it is "spiritual but not religious", are not redefining these words, nor even attempting to define them more rigorously (as I have done) in the hope of learning more about the meanings of the meanings of the words. They are simply saying that their experience with AA does not fit the definition of the word "religious" as they understand the meaning of that word in common usage, but that it does fit the definition of "spiritual" as they understand THAT.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

GB's carefully cherry-picked definition of the word "spiritual" was obviously intended to support the contention that these are equivalent. Even this was not entirely successful; for one thing, though (as I have argued) "supernatural" beliefs are an indispensible aspect of religiousity, not everything "related to supernatural beings or phenomena" easily qualifies as religious. What about beliefs in such things as ghosts, or dowsing, or astrology?

That defect aside, we're talking about common usage here, so we need to include other ways in which this word is used, not merely the ones that GB thinks will help his case.

Some other definitions (or senses) available from online dictionaries include:

1.of the spirit or the soul as distinguished from the body or material matters
2.of, from, or concerned with the intellect; intellectual
3.of or consisting of spirit; not corporeal
4.characterized by the ascendancy of the spirit; showing much refinement of thought and feeling

Now, we could go off on tangents having to do with the validity of the underlying assumptions reflected in some of these definitions (and in fact, we have done some of that in this thread), but we don't really need to do that in order to determine whether these definitions are valid representations of ways in which the word "spiritual" is used in the language. Is there good empirical evidence for the existence of a "soul", or a "self", or an "intellect", or a "personality", or a "consciousness", or a "spirit"? Doesn't matter. What we're interested in here is what people mean when they use those words. The meanings of the meanings? Possibly interesting, but not critical to answering the question at issue.

These people who say that AA is not religious, or that it is "spiritual but not religious", are not redefining these words, nor even attempting to define them more rigorously (as I have done) in the hope of learning more about the meanings of the meanings of the words. They are simply saying that their experience with AA does not fit the definition of the word "religious" as they understand the meaning of that word in common usage, but that it does fit the definition of "spiritual" as they understand THAT.

I pointed out that the set of all Religious Entities are Spiritual by definition, but that the set of all Spiritual Entities includes some that are NOT Religious (and no, I am not using entities in the "Spiritual" sense, i.e. ghosts, gods, fairies, angels, poltergeists, etc ). This can in no way be described as "cherry-picking."

So your argument is either another lie, or evidence of your inability to grasp my very clear statement. However, as I don't believe you are unintelligent, I'm going to go conclude your argument is just another lie.

GB

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

I pointed out that the set of all Religious Entities are Spiritual by definition, but that the set of all Spiritual Entities includes some that are NOT Religious

And where was it again that you pointed that out? Oh, wait, I know the answer:

"Answered AD INFINITUM WITH STATEMENTS AND THE EVIDENCE TO BACK THEM UP!"
"Nearly every post that is a response to yours has an example."
"And no, I'm not going to repost all my posts to prove my point"
"Etc, etc".

-- same response you make, in one form or another, every time I ask you to show where it was that you said something you claim to have said and that I can't recall you having said.

Are you willing to give any hints? Were those your exact words? How many pages back would I have to go to find you saying that? I just did a manual search back about 10 pages -- nothing. Using Google, I did find some relevant quotes, though.

I have you saying on page 17 that "In the case of AA, Spiritual does = Religious." I guess that could be taken to imply that in other cases it does not, but it seems to fall a bit short of the "very clear statement" you're claiming to have made.. And I have qayak saying on page 48 that "There are times that spitiual definitely does not mean religious." Could you have confused yourself with him? It would be an easy enough mistake to make. Oh, I did find one statement by you which may be of particular interest here:

"What I DO hate (with a passion) is dishonest debate tactics."

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

And where was it again that you pointed that out? Oh, wait, I know the answer:

"Answered AD INFINITUM WITH STATEMENTS AND THE EVIDENCE TO BACK THEM UP!"
"Nearly every post that is a response to yours has an example."
"And no, I'm not going to repost all my posts to prove my point"
"Etc, etc".

-- same response you make, in one form or another, every time I ask you to show where it was that you said something you claim to have said and that I can't recall you having said.

Are you willing to give any hints? Were those your exact words? How many pages back would I have to go to find you saying that? I just did a manual search back about 10 pages -- nothing. Using Google, I did find some relevant quotes, though.

I have you saying on page 17 that "In the case of AA, Spiritual does = Religious." I guess that could be taken to imply that in other cases it does not, but it seems to fall a bit short of the "very clear statement" you're claiming to have made.. And I have qayak saying on page 48 that "There are times that spitiual definitely does not mean religious." Could you have confused yourself with him? It would be an easy enough mistake to make. Oh, I did find one statement by you which may be of particular interest here:

"What I DO hate (with a passion) is dishonest debate tactics."

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Sure, AA is Spiritual. Religious Organizations like AA are also Spiritual by definition.

But when your Sacred Texts refer constantly to a Deity and the attendant Religious Doctrines, claiming that they are "Spiritual but not Religious" is a lie.

GB

Looks pretty clear to me.

GB

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Looks pretty clear to me.

"Sure, AA is Spiritual. Religious Organizations like AA are also Spiritual by definition" constitutes a very clear statement that "the set of all Spiritual Entities includes some that are NOT Religious"? Can you explain HOW it does that?

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

"Sure, AA is Spiritual. Religious Organizations like AA are also Spiritual by definition" constitutes a very clear statement that "the set of all Spiritual Entities includes some that are NOT Religious"? Can you explain HOW it does that?

Sure, read the whole quote in context:

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Quote:

1spir·i·tu·al adj
\ˈspir-i-chə-wəl, -i-chəl, -ich-wəl\
Definition of SPIRITUAL

1
: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>
2
a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs>
b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3
: concerned with religious values
4
: related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5
a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic

(set of all Spiritual Entities includes some that are NOT religious)

Sure, AA is Spiritual. Religious Organizations like AA are also Spiritual by definition.

But when your Sacred Texts refer constantly to a Deity and the attendant Religious Doctrines, claiming that they are "Spiritual but not Religious" is a lie. (set of all Religious Entities are Spiritual)

GB

Clear enough now?

That's why I posted the entire set of definitions for Spiritual.

Looks like someone's cherry-picking, but it sure ain't me.

GB

[Hallo Alfie]

From wiki

If spirituality is understood as the search for or the development of inner peace or the foundations of happiness, then spiritual practice of some kind is essential for personal well being.

This activity may or may not include belief in supernatural beings.

If one has such a belief and feels that relationship to such beings is the foundation of happiness then spiritual practice will be pursued on that basis: if one has no such belief spiritual practice is still essential for the management and understanding of thoughts and emotions which otherwise prevent happiness. Many techniques and practices developed and explored in religious contexts, such as meditation, are immensely valuable in themselves as skills for managing aspects of the inner life.


My bold.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

From wiki

If spirituality is understood as the search for or the development of inner peace or the foundations of happiness, then spiritual practice of some kind is essential for personal well being.

This activity may or may not include belief in supernatural beings.

If one has such a belief and feels that relationship to such beings is the foundation of happiness then spiritual practice will be pursued on that basis: if one has no such belief spiritual practice is still essential for the management and understanding of thoughts and emotions which otherwise prevent happiness. Many techniques and practices developed and explored in religious contexts, such as meditation, are immensely valuable in themselves as skills for managing aspects of the inner life.


My bold.

That sounds lovely Alfie. Now does it say anything about Sacred Texts which refer to God?

EDIT: Glad you agree that Spiritual AA is also Religious.

GB

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Clear enough now?

No, it isn't clear enough.

So my argument was either another LIE, or evidence of my inability to grasp your very clear statement -- the one you now claim resides in some context. Context which, at best, might just barely have been inferred from what you posted. If you think modifying your "very clear" statement to show this context by using the quote feature to put up some clumsily appended versions of you own prior posts makes that problem go away, then I have some bad news. It says a very great deal about the depth of your passion when it comes to dishonest debate tactics. That you can imagine for even a moment that it solves the problem also says quite a bit about your ability to practice anything remotely resembling logic. But it does nothing to show that your embracing the difference between "spiritual" and "religious" is anything but a hasty effort to abandon a failed argument. Could you possibly do it with less grace and skill? I'll bet you could. Why not crack out the BIG red letters and show us what you've really got?

[AlBell]

Please don't tempt him.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

No, it isn't clear enough.

So my argument was either another LIE, or evidence of my inability to grasp your very clear statement -- the one you now claim resides in some context. Context which, at best, might just barely have been inferred from what you posted. If you think modifying your "very clear" statement to show this context by using the quote feature to put up some clumsily appended versions of you own prior posts makes that problem go away, then I have some bad news. It says a very great deal about the depth of your passion when it comes to dishonest debate tactics. That you can imagine for even a moment that it solves the problem also says quite a bit about your ability to practice anything remotely resembling logic. But it does nothing to show that your embracing the difference between "spiritual" and "religious" is anything but a hasty effort to abandon a failed argument. Could you possibly do it with less grace and skill? I'll bet you could. Why not crack out the BIG red letters and show us what you've really got?

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Sure, read the whole quote in context:

Quote:

1spir·i·tu·al adj
\ˈspir-i-chə-wəl, -i-chəl, -ich-wəl\
Definition of SPIRITUAL

1
: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>
2
a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs>
b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3
: concerned with religious values
4
: related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5
a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic

(set of all Spiritual Entities includes some that are NOT religious)

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Sure, AA is Spiritual. Religious Organizations like AA are also Spiritual by definition.

But when your Sacred Texts refer constantly to a Deity and the attendant Religious Doctrines, claiming that they are "Spiritual but not Religious" is a lie. (set of all Religious Entities are Spiritual)

Clear enough now?

That's why I posted the entire set of definitions for Spiritual.

Looks like someone's cherry-picking, but it sure ain't me.

GB

Your arguments are Moronic!

GB

EDIT: Only an Idiot wouldn't be able to follow my argument. YOU are NOT AN IDIOT.

[Gandalfs Beard]

CLARIFICATION FOR THE SIMPLE-MINDED:

Religion/Religious are a SUBSET of Spiritual.

Religion/Religious pertains to a belief in a Deity or Deities and the attendant Doctrines.

AA's texts explicitly promote a Deity and its attendant Doctrines.

Therefore AA is Religious, and being religious it is part of a SUBSET of Spiritual.

Therefore claims that AA is "Spiritual but not Religious" is complete BS

GB

[Hallo Alfie]

Why am I reminded of the Scots?

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Why am I reminded of the Scots?

I don't know! Why are you reminded of the Scots, and how is it relevant to the fact that AA is a Religious Organization (which by definition is ALSO Spiritual)?

GB

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

And again, this is precisely my point. There is a substantial difference between the two. Unfortunately you don't seem able to distinguish said difference

It would help if you actually answered my question, mind you.