Okay, Slythe, you win. You are absolutely correct in everything you say. I surrender. Please don’t humiliate me any further.
Crystalguy
How can I be correct about everything? I was asking questions!
You know, like:
- What is AA’s success rate?
- How can it be a non-religious group if “God” is mentioned so often in the rules?
- In what we can it be classified as a disease?
- Are the 12 steps all necessary, or are they “suggestions”?(Both of these possibilities were proposed by the same person, BTW!)
- If there are other programs that do not treat alcoholism as a disease, yet seem to work, how can AA say for sure it is a disease? It either is or it isn’t, right?
CrystalGuy, these are called Questions.
The proper response to them are Answers.
So glad to be of service. 
Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.
Okay, I will try to answer your questions as best I can, without resorting to anger or sarcasm.
- What is AA’s success rate?
A: I assume you mean some sort of score as to how many people stop drinking and how many don’t. I don’t know and I don’t think anyone knows since no names are taken nor are any statistics kept. I personally know maybe twenty people who were able to stop drinking through AA. To those people and to their families, AA is an unqualified success.
- How can it be a non-religious group if “God” is mentioned so often in the rules?
A: Well, first of all, the twelve steps are not “rules.” And AA does say “God as we understand him to be.” The word “him” is used in the sense that “Dear Sir” is an acceptable form of salutation as used in a letter. This was especially true at the time the twelve steps were formalized.
It frankly had never occurred to me that people would object to attending AA on an anti-religion basis. Personally, I accept the use of the term “higher power” as a substitute for “God.” I do not believe that AA is a “religous” group in the sense that it exists to provide a place of worship. My take on the matter was that IF a belief in “God as we understand him to be” helped, so much the better. If that belief did not exist, but one still quit drinking, then the objective of the organization has been met. I can guarantee that the purpose of AA AS A WHOLE is to assist people to give up destructive drinking and not to proselytise religion in any way. Each AA group is independent. There are individual groups that emphasise Christian fellowship. There are groups made up of bikers. There are all-male groups and there are all-female groups. Possibly, even probably, there are all-African American groups or all-Caucasion groups, or all American Indian groups, I don’t know. What a person encounters in one particular group may well be completely atypical of the organization as a whole. But, there is a group for everyone. Some searching for a compatible group may be required. Admittedly, in a small community, there will probably be not much of a selection.
- In what we can it be classified as a disease?
A: My information as to the status of alcoholism as a disease was given me by medical doctors. Please see my previous definition of “disease.” Alcoholism is manifested by certain unmistakeable symptoms and those symptons are alleviated by effective therapy. In many cases, but not in all, that therapy is association with an AA group.
- Are the 12 steps all necessary, or are they “suggestions”?(Both of these possibilities were proposed by the same person, BTW!)
A: None of the twelve steps are necessary in the sense that they are requirements. No tests or evaluations are performed. Rather than being requirements or suggestions, I take them as goals or ideals. My interpretation is that one should strive to acheive these goals but not everyone can do so. I still have not met some of those goals, even though I no longer drink.
- If there are other programs that do not treat alcoholism as a disease, yet seem to work, how can AA say for sure it is a disease? It either is or it isn’t, right?
A: To repeat, it is the medical profession, by and large, that defines and treats alcoholism as a disease. I am sure that medical doctors can be found who do not agree. I believe that most do, however.
If other programs are effective, more power to them. But I am not familiar with any other programs, even by name. So I cannot speak to their recognition of alcoholism as a disease—maybe you or someone else can provide a link to these groups so that we may learn their thinking on the issue.
And there is this: I went to AA because I wanted to stop some very destructive behavior patterns. I had failed in several attempts to change those patterns on my own.
I had heard of AA for most of my life and I knew at least three people who had been able to manage their addiction through AA. I was predisposed to believe that AA might be able to help me and I was willing to at least attempt to follow their guidelines. Had I been forced to attend, I would probably still be drinking (or dead) but the failure would have been mine, not theirs.
Crystalguy
Last time I checked we had freedom of religion. Christianity may be pervasive, but this most assuredly is not a “Christian country.”
Esprix
You know, for someone who slams everyone else for “talking out their ass,” you seem to be doing a right fine job of it yourself. If we’d known we had such an expert in our midst, perhaps we should have let you teach us first.
Please, please, please cite a source for your above statements.
Esprix
Slythe, two things you need to remember are that some people, both religious and not religious (or Christian and non-Christian) have used AA as it stands and it has helped them (just as it has not helped others); and there are successful alternatives to AA that use the similar methodology but are not Christian-heavy or religious-oriented, and they also work for some people and not for others.
The point is, no matter what a person’s addiction, the important thing is to find whatever system works for them and use it to save themselves.
Esprix
I am fully aware that it seems to work for some people, at the cost of trading one addiction for another. For most people, the trade off is worth it, AA meetings being less destructive than alcoholism in the long run. But when people use the “proven” in a sentence, then get upset when you dare to ask for the proof, I will call them on it.
Likewise when they claim that an obviously religious program isn’t religious at all.
Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.
I do not drink alcohol, I really know nothing about AA (other than it seems to work for many people) but I have been following this thread with interest.
First off, I want to add that CA Boomer couldn’t have been more rude. And, slythe, even though you annoy me at times (and I annoy you) I don’t know what the hell he was going on about in regards to your job. Doesn’t sound like you have anything to be ashamed of in your choice of career. Weird.
I really don’t know much about this, but my gut reaction says “It depends on who.” Meaning, some people are going to become coffee-drinking AA “junkies”, who can’t miss a meeting (and is that so bad, as long as they are basically happy?) But I am guessing that other people, non-religious or not, will benefit from AA, and move on, maybe going to a meeting or two now and then. I don’t know what the stats are as to how many successful AA members get “addicted” - do you? What exactly is your point here?
Taking on faith that some people will benefit from AA, while some will not, what exactly is the “trade off” to those who do benefit? To attend meetings, drink coffee. yak with other AA members? Is that all you’re getting at? I’m not sure I get your point here either. Most things have a “trade off”. My job is a trade off - I go somewhere else for 8 hours a day, I get money. Trade off. So what is wrong with that?
I don’t know either way if AA is proven, but if a lot of people feel like it has worked for them, (and “the proof is in the pudding” - they don’t drink anymore) then I guess they can feel quite strongly about the whole subject.
Wouldn’t know anything about that first-hand either. I suspect it also depends on the individual AA meetings, to some extent. And, if many non-religious AA members have benefitted from AA (and it looks that that has happened) then it sounds like the religious aspect is diluted enough to be palatable to many who are not interested in the “higher power” thing. My guess is that AA has a religious component to it, perhaps a strong religious component…but that isn’t quite the same as being a “religious program”, which would seem to indicate something that requires (absolutely requires) adherence to the religious aspects of the “religious program.” I think there is a subtle difference there.
But, this is all a bit of a guess, since I don’t know much about AA. I guess I am curious, slythe, what exactly is your personal knowledge of AA? Have you ever attended meetings? Do you have alcohol problems? If you haven’t, my guess is that you know (first hand) as little as me. What exactly do you know first hand?
Polydactyl Cats Unlimited
“A Cat Cannot Have Too Many Toes”
Slythe, I really don’t know where you get the idea that attending AA meetings is an addiction. AA benefitted me enormously but I no longer attend the meetings. In fact, I haven’t attended a meeting in several years. People who do attend regularly seem to derive something from doing so. If regular attendence helps them to remain sober, more power to them.
I also don’t get your continuing insistence that AA is a “religious” organization but if that is your opinion, so be it. I don’t want to argue any further about it.
And, in the heat of anger, I made some crack about you being a rent-a-cop. Please accept my apologies for slighting your occupation, and by extension, you yourself. It was rude of me, completely uncalled for and not at all relevant to the discussion.
Crystalguy
Damn it, Crystalguy!
Never apologize in the BBQ Pit! Take crap like that to MPSIMS, where it belongs.
Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.
Slythe…
This has probably been said already (too lazy to read thru the entire thread). I belong to NA, been going regularly(sp?) for more than 10 years. Without it, I would be dead or in prison, because I was a slave to narcotics. Believe me, a couple meetings a week and trying to work the steps are a small price to pay for life and freedom.
And twelve step groups are not religous, even though there can be some uppity bible thumpers in each program. I am an atheist. Became one since getting clean, and all my program freinds and my sponsor know it. The program still works and no one has insisted that I change or even keep quiet about my views on religion. Everyone has to decide what ‘higher power’ means for themselves.
Bottom line is, it works. But normies will never understand why. And thats OK.
I’m afraid that, all other things aside, I have to call Calif on a few things.
-
Excluded middle is NOT a fallacy.
Either a thing is true, or it is not true.
Say you’re given a statement A and want to prove X. First assume that A is true, and from there prove that X is true. Discharge the assumption of A (you will no longer work with it) and instead assume that A is not true. When you, from that assumption, prove again that X is true, you have proven, unconditionally, that X is true. Period. That is the rule of excluded middle. A statement is either true or not true, and you can prove things using that tautology. -
Slythe didn’t even USE excluded middle, jackass.
-
Get your head out of your ass, find the exit sign, and get the fuck out of the straight dope. Your presence lessens significantly the average quality of posters on the board, and given that there are 5000 registered members, that shows you are pretty fucking pathetic.
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.
Now for Slythe.
The Founding Fathers were not Puritans. Tom Jefferson, for instance, was a Deist. A whole bunch of them were.
But you’re right, Calif is NOTHING like them, they were intelligent, socially conscious men that founded a great nation based on impartial justice and equality (mostly).
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.
Green Bean:
Wrong. You have the option of going to jail, or whatever sentence the court has imposed. It’s a choice.
Larry Borgia:
If this statement were true (which I doubt), is being ‘forced’ to go to an AA meeting better or worse than being ‘forced’ to go to jail? In any event, who got your ‘friend’ into this situation in the first place? Actions have consequences.
Both of you, read Frankd6’s post, which clearly explains the terms/consequences of an alcohol related conviction.
Esprix:
Christianity is not only ‘pervasive’, it is *predominant,*and has been througout our history. The founding fathers were Christian. Does our money say “In Buddha We Trust?” or “In the Goddess of the Pink Unicorn We Trust?” Is there a picture of Rock Hudson or Liberace on our currency?
If you had bothered to read the thread before you posted, you would have known that was a sarcastic remark made to another ignorant asshole like yourself.
The subject of this thread is something with which I have much more than passing knowledge, you light-loafered butt nugget.
One of the great benefits of a forum like this is the ability to connect with a vast store of experience and information. You have the choice to either avail yourself of that knowledge, or attempt to demean it. Unfortunately there are many ‘pseudo-intellectuals’ like yourself here, all coming from a very narrow minded and jaded perspective, who have huge egos to self-massage. Since I have more than a nodding acquaintance with this subject, and you obviously know nothing about it, I submit you have nothing to offer. Therefore, it is you, who are ‘talking out of your ass.’ (Which is a better use of it than you usually make, anus breath.)
As far as posting cites, labia lips, there is more than enough information available on that computer in front of you. Either come to a discussion with something to contribute, fuckwad, or shut the fuck up, you freaking biological error.
yosemitebabe:
I haven’t even started.
::
And Slythe, addiction is a disease, recognized by JAMA and the DSM4.
Thank you, but it’s “slythe”, NOT “Slythe”, dammit!
I fully realize that there were deists among the country’s founders. I was trying to point out the diffference between the way CalifBoomer worships and the way his idealized “Christian Founders” worshipped. If that wasn’t clear, I apologize. I wasn’t about to try to explain “Deism” to him, Surgoshan.
Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.
And spooje, thank you for the reference. You are quite correct, and I retract my previous statement about Alcoholism not being a disease.
Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.
Surgoshan :(what are you a student of, pudwhacking?)
Oh, so you were there? You knew these guys? Or are you just spouting yet more revisionist history? Next you be saying the founding fathers were a bunch of homosexual buddhists, you moron. Get a fucking job, asswipe. Slythe could use some help eating donuts and guarding the 7-11.
::
And, Slythe, you moron:
Again, how do you presume to know whatthe fuck I do? I may sacrifice small animals at midnight for all you know, you pompous stooge.
and:
So, what…now you’re a professor???
What the fuck do you have a Master’s in…masturbation, you fat donut eating pudwhacker?
::