So you are conceding the point about organization and a hierarchy. Progress.
Huh? You haven’t read anything I’ve posted if you think that. It’s foolish to believe that religious cults do not have a hierarchy. I don’t feel like repeating myself over and over again. If you don’t want to read what I’ve contributed, fine. If people seriously aren’t going to read what I’ve posted, I’m not even going to bother contributing anymore to this debate.
More baseless, unrelated opinion.
Have a nice day.
What exactly is this religious cult “agenda” that you keep implying? Leave aside the semantics of “disease” and “higher power” for a moment, and tell me, what do the people in AA gain by “tricking” someone to attend? In what way is it like a cult? They don’t try to prevent you from leaving, they don’t try to cut you off from your family and friends, they don’t call you or hound you if you quit, they don’t try to get you to leave you own religion, they don’t tell you to refuse medical help, they don’t try to grub up your money so you have nowhere to go, they don’t live in communes, etc. Each group sets its own operating rules (hours, smoking policy, coffee making, etc.)–there’s no central office telling them to what to wear, etc. From everything I can see, you can go to AA or NA and not have to change anything else about how you live your life. You can go to AA and continue to be an Atheist–or a Buddhist, or a Mormon, or whatever. Hell, they can’t tell you not to attend either, even if you want to say, “I don’t believe in a higher power; and don’t think I have a disease. Fuck you!” The only real rule they have is, “Talk about alcohol/drugs–not politics.” I joined a friend at his meeting, and people really just talked about the difficulties they’ve had from booze/drugs and the good things they’ve had from being sober. No one tried to “convert” me or get money from me. Yeah, it’s kind of strange how they introduce themselves, but overall, they were just friendly. I said I was a visitor, and they just let me listen in.
And you can even go to AA and then drink when you go home, if you want. They don’t follow you home or give you a breath test. Really, if you just wanted to go there only to get a free coffee and cookies, you could. Put in your cream and sugar, listen for 10 or 20 seconds, and then leave.
You really have some kind of strange conspiracy theory about this.
Bufe (1998) claimed that there are simply not a lot of curiosity seekers at AA meetings. The people that attend the AA meetings admit to having a problem with alcohol. Saying that someone should go attend merely because they are curious is not realistic. Most show up because they are led to believe that they have a problem.
As for the hidden agenda, people are guilt-tripped into admitting that they have a problem even when they do not. People listen to stories and some people tell their own stories. People are coerced into giving up alcohol when they do not have a problem (Bufe, 1998).
I would also like to add that Bufe (1998) stated that AA does not have a high success rate (if you are asking why then read the cite because I’m not going to spoon-feed). There is no indication that attending AA meetings is a sure way of stopping alcohol addiction. People that have stopped alcohol suddenly have had a higher success rate than people who have attended AA meetings (again, please read the cite I provided if you have further questions).
**
Sorry, the cite I provided is a PDF. I could not find an html version. **
Alcoholism is not a disease. There have been many people who have adjusted their drinking successfully. There is no truth to the phrase “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.” AA preaches that there is no cure to alcoholism. Once you admit that you are an alcoholic, you are given the lable as an alcoholic. I am sure one would get sour looks if that person showed up to an AA meeting and said, “man, I had a great time last night because I had a few beers.”
Alcoholism can be easily cured with a little adjustment.
So you’re basing your entire understanding of AA based on only one work, by an essentially self-published, writer with an obvious personal ax to grind, who has no credentials in addiction medicine, and who has done no clinical research himself? Talk about blind faith. If you look around enough, you will always be able to find a people on a mission against one thing or another. One of the essential skills of doing research is evaluating sources (and not relying on the internet for all your information).
Neither you nor your sole inspiration source have any basis to say that. You have no way of speaking for the millions of people who try AA. Are you saying that the people who show up to AA were just minding their own business somewhere, and a conniving AA “recruiter” approached them and “led them to believe” that they had to go to AA? Do you really believe that? Or that they were all conned by their therapists?
I’m no expert on these issues, but if I were to find myself writing something like this, I would be seriously alarmed.
How disturbing is it?
Let’s say that there is some number of people who have had problems with alcohol abuse or alcohol dependency, by whatever definition we choose. Let’s say that there might be some proportion of people in this group (0 percent or greater) who suffer from the disease “alcoholism” and the remaining people do not suffer from the disease “alcoholism.”
A.A. accepts all persons who have exhibited symptoms of problems with alcohol and teaches them that they should avoid alcohol for the rest of their lives and tries to offer tools to help them do this. Say there are also non-A.A. entities that also offer this approach, but without the element of spiritualism or religious belief. The individual may follow either approach or may choose from numerous other approaches to handling problem drinking.
In a practical sense, where is the actual harm in this? I’m having trouble understanding what in this I should find disturbing.
At the most there is some relatively small number of people who have created problems for themselves or others while under the influence of alcohol and who are encouraged to avoid consuming alcohol for the rest of their lives, and some or all of these people do not suffer from a disease called alcoholism. I don’t really see any problem with this.
Do you really believe anything you are saying has any validity whatsoever? You haven’t provided anything that would indicate that they do.
I would argue that you have an ax to grind as well…
Hmmmm.. Who to believe: a few people talking from their biased experiences without any substance to backup their claims or someone who has spent time to come up with a valid argument?
Right. And the hundred of billions of dollars that alcoholism costs this country alone every year–and the alcohol related deaths that occur every half hour–all could be avoid by “just a little adjustment.” But no one thought to do that, I guess. Maybe now that you’ve figured it out, all that will stop.
Cite?
Yes, more people have recovered from alcoholism by adjusting their behavior than by merely attending AA meetings. Showing up to AA meetings and believing that alcoholism is a disease is not helping AT ALL. Also, attributing all of life’s struggles to a Higher Power does not help either.
What exactly are you asking for a “cite” of? 
You are making so many claims, but you aren’t providing any cites to figures. You refute my argument and yet I’m supposed to believe all of your figures. Wow…
I bolded them for you. 
OneMissedPost, do you accept as given that there is some nonzero cost to society resulting from misuse of alcohol and that some nonzero number of deaths are caused by misuse of alcohol? Do you further accept that some nonzero number of people, who would otherwise have continued to use alcohol, stop misusing alcohol by following the A.A. program?
Here’s one…It may not be hundreds of billions of dollars, but it’s still significant.
I’m asking for cites.
And I never made any of those claims.
guizot
Make sure you provide multiple sources if possible since you complained that I wasn’t providing you with enough sources.
Since you laid it out like that, I guess we should never research then.
That’s a big difference. 
I’m not trying to be mean at all.
Here’s another…This one says “every 48 seconds”, not every 30.