Only comparing the species that authored them. And although Darwin renounced God to his dying day, I still believe in an "energy" that fosters creativity, even if the recipient is unaware of it's origin.

whoa!!!!

first of all i happen to believe in an infinite energy -- just not finite universal creator. cannot label it as god. but surely not nothingness,

i only used bill maher as a reference, actually i personally don't care for as he pretty much hates women. just used him because the author of the book i referred to had been on his show one evening. anyway, bill stole my idea for that show "politically incorrect" -- rather his producer did which is why there is no god --- just a little joke, it's late.

you can quote and quote -- i never finished college -- but i consider science as more of guide for what's possible and probable than god. sue me!

and i think a belief in science and god can co-exist. sorry-i can't stand bill maher.

Hi Kserah,

Well first off it is certainly NOT my intention to talk people out of their respective faiths--but in sharing my own past, I am compelled to explain how I came to realize that all the Gods or Godheads of organized religions in Anglo-Saxon people (basically meaning the Western part of the world) bear so little difference from mythology of our (homo sapien) past over the millennia.

(Kserah - did you know that Buddhism, a kind of religion which differs fundamentally from Christianity, predates Christianity by almost six centuries! I find the fact alone a fascinating indictment on some of our religions' corner on the "One True God," especially when they get to proselytizing that He can be found only through Jesus Christ.)


Suggest you give a look at Richard Dawkns' God Delusion. It is very short and extremely easy to understand. He is no radical atheist. In fact, his is 67 and his education and majority of his writings for decades have been on biology--he is a evolutionary biologist before all else.

But he raises a pointed, poignant answer to your "awe" argument, and that is the entire universe is miraculous enough all by itself without need of a creator. Look at the quanta (quantum physics). Look what happens when we go from observing the very large (light-years) to the very small (the subatomic the world). The laws that govern everything we know about reality get turned on their head. Look at Einsein's "spooky action at a distance." Consider how subatomic particles are able to communicate instantaneously from across the entire galaxy.

The chances of the right proportion of molecules to form carbon-based life-forms on a planet (which would have to be, remember) suitable to support them may seem immeasurably small until you consider the vastness of our known universe. To me, it's nothing more special than some of the phenomena I've just described.


Me too. Spirits on journey? Zukav's souls in process? Maybe. I don't know but I hope this isn't it.


I much enjoyed your long, thought-out reply and appreciate your contribution.

Stits

so you did read "the god delusion" by dawkins?...actually thrilled to find someone else who has.

and jehza, thought i inferred i did not like maher --

Yes, you did I was simply agreeing with you and explaining why my post might have come off as too heated. Not personal, as you know . I would be surprised to learn that you liked Maher, and would naturally assume although you might agree with some of his dissent that his persona might not exactly be palatable to you, as he treats his women guests egregiously- I think he has even undermined their arguments by calling them "sweetheart" as if they were some M. Manroe type who had just recently started reading the NY Times.

the good thing is that at least women with half a brain will be spared any kind of romantic situaion with him as he is sooooooo very blatant. to be that offensive on and off camera and really really ugly, besides, no one is missing out, that's for sure. UGH!!!!!

I've seen the statistics vary from 10% to as little as 5%, with some claiming an obscene rate of long term abstinence (over 1 year) as being as high as 48%. I think you are right, here. If it works, great. If not, move on. However, with no willingness, nothing will obviously help a true addict get off drugs. Unfortunately, in my experience, such willingness only arrives when we are in a fox hole; in our most desperate hour. So a reasonable argument could be made that almost any "sensible" recovery program would work for the person who was willing to stay sober at any cost. CBT+ adequate psychotropic medication ((I believe this is a must)+ RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT seems to be the most popular and effective equation for the treatment of addiction these days. But I must say, if one truly has a spiritual awakening, this trumps all else. This is rare, but possible. So
flame away!

Sorry, never been in AA (don't drink) and my sister went for short while but it wasn't for her, she was forced to go. My argument was that people who have had 1 (ONE) infraction with alcohol shouldn't end up in mandatory court ordered AA meetings. Of course if they get a bunch of DUIs then they are in fact an alcoholic and need some help, but even then AA may not be it, do you understand? They may need a therapist instead. It was as simply as that. Someone who drinks 2 or 3 times a month with a couple of friends then gets a DUI and has to go mandatory meetings is NOT going to get anything out of it. Save it for those who really want it and need it.

And yeah, we all know people who have been killed by drunk drivers. But it was just as bad 20 years is all I was trying to say. Except that 20 years ago your life wasn't completed ruined. Twenty years ago people didn't go "Oh, did you hear? Henry hit a person and he was drunk! He's going to jail for the rest of his life". Nope - back then the police sent you home, gave you a fine or put you in the drunk tank (never had any of it happen to me).

In fact, three of my brother's best friends, including the best man at his wedding, were killed in one year by drunk drivers. I think it's sad, but I also know that people die a million different ways every day. Maybe my view is all screwed up, who knows?

This topic isn't about "poor me, I know people who have been killed by drunk driver".

I think the "maybe" is the clincher in regards to "mandatory AA" or court appointed meetings. If there is one in a thousand chance that an addict or perhaps someone who is developing a substance abuse problem ( there is a difference, but it is a slippery slope, I think) might benefit from attending AA, then why not do it?

And by the way, I'm sorry for your loss(es), regardless of the circumstances.

Spot on.

I agree with Jez here,.. While it may not be necessary for a person who isn't an alcoholic to sit through ordered 'A.A.' classes.. it certainly isn't going to kill them. I also disagree that they won't come out of the classes without any garnered knowledge.

In those meetings, it is quite likely they will see the suffering and experience what a true addict goes through on some scale. Which might , in turn, cause them to evaluate their habits, why they drink in the first place,.. and to at the very least keep things in check.

You have to remember no one started out drinking with the thought "Hey, I want to become an alcoholic.. "

Lastly, A.A has benefits beyond alcohol addiction... many people with addictions of any kind go to A.A simply because of the structure and benefit it provides. Whether you are addicted to Alcohol or Sex,.. getting out of it is largely the same set of principles and action. Stop, right? That is the simple answer. The meeting and sharing, and studying with self introspection meets the hard answers of what do I do in my life to fill this void, to move on without said addiction, and sometimes.. why did it start in the first place?

Generally one is broken in some respect that causes addictions.. Simply abstaining from the substance doesn't do much good. The person needs to figure out the damage and then work on fixing it while abstaining -- Or consciously or subconsciously you will use another vice to 'band-aid' that spot.

This is where A.A, counseling, CBT, etc, etc comes into play.

I agree with you on your first contention. Many members of AA neglect family and friends, as well as other responsibilities in the name of their sobereity. For a time, ...okay, but if you do this for years, maybe you feel better, but the relationships you committed to before you hit the doors of AA have probably stayed about the same (if that is of importance to you).

I also agree if you are prone to obsessive or addictive behavior, even if you kick drugs, porn-whatever, you will probably replace it with something else. Someone wrote a book about this, I think it's called "Positive Addiction" and it advocates things like exercise as a replacement for a "negative addiction"-which I think works, but that is irrelevant, I think, in the context of this discussion.

"There is nothing worse than a reformed anybody"
-I can see your point. Nobody seems to care much for the crack head who robbed everyone blind but has now found Jesus and wants to reform you, too. But there is a difference between personal growth and a 180 degree personality change. In my experience, lasting change occurs slowly, is painful at times, and the person trying to change their so called "character deficets/addictions ect." is not as interested in self-promotion: they simply want to live a different life.



An "alteration of consciousness"- yes, true. Sleep, meditation, exercise, spirituality and of course drugs and alcohol all provide us with a necessary escape from consciousness. Relapse away! No one is pressuring you otherwise, nor do I think poorly of all drug addicts/users/abusers. It's your life-who is anyone to judge? Except for you. Which in my experience, is the least sympathetic jury around. If you feel okay about your life-Great! If not, just know that not everyone who has changed some of their less than palatable habits is a charlatan, miserable, or sorry for it. I hope this doesn't come off as a "Timmy get off the drugs" message- as it was not intended to be. Just responding to an interesting post, IMO.
J

I totally agree jehza1,pure will power with a spiritual FOCUS will in the end beat any addiction.This may mean using other substances OCCASIONALLY to help you through,but with will power and focused spiritual attention,all addictions can and will be left behind.

Until one learns the definition of addiction,and how they came to be addicted,no 'program' will help them.

From another angle,if someone who sees themselves as addicted wants some sympathy from others,AA/NA etc are great places to go.Forget about retaining your 'soul' though.Be prepared to be assimilated into the 'hive'.

What it boils down to Stits, is that spirituality is not something one looks for or finds in a book or a group. It is only through experience that one can find it. It is a personal 'happening'--without words. Either you feel it or you don't. In fact, it was when Buddha quit looking that he attained enlightenment! You needn't espouse your theories--I've read all the books. Started 40 some years ago as a teenager.

I think you've been looking so hard for something that you can't find it, because it's been there all along--like the car keys tucked under the jacket. Spirituality and God is not intellectual. It simply is. It's only when you are still inside that you sense it, and like the dream you try to remember, it becomes elusive when you try to grasp it.

And we are no accident. No, sirree.

Great post Kserah.
It brought to mind a Zen koan that sums up what you are saying about spirituallty.

“Since it is all too clear,
It takes time to grasp it.
When you understand that it’s foolish to
Look for fire with fire,
The meal is already cooked”

This is something that has stayed with me for years.The greatest moments of insight into ourselves,are usually when we stop TRYING to look for answers,and simply let go and FOCUS on the idea that we exist.

Excellent Kserah.. I was just discussing this very revelation with my brother tonight. It is essentially out of our hands -- and it is futile in trying to obtain by doing what 'man' has mapped out for us to do. We are enlightened by experience and the path to such is largely unknown and different for most.

Great post..

Daniel.

Daniel. Daniel. Daniel.

Do you realize how time-worn and typical this approach is to label people who reject the program? It's grown into a large thread but I'm pretty sure I covered and aptly disassembled this "device" for the dangerous labeling of *all* people for whom who 12-Step groups is just not a a fit.

Stits

Hey Mel.. ehhh, Pat. lol


Really? Got a source for that?

Authors like R Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are unafraid polemicists and never did shy from intellectually stimulating topics, however controversial they may be.

Let me put it another way: If one is to to be intellectually honest (self-honest), then he must have the courage to explain his heartfelt convictions else he (she) is just living afraid to speak to their mind.

Me, I can't abide that.

Further, I'll take a grounded polemicist author over the shoddy logic of Christian apologists (most famous, C.S Lewis) any day.

Heh - I liked this catchy quote from Hitchens so much that I memorized it! Monotheistic religions are a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few non-events.. Kinda... says it all, really.


Hey, Neo!

In debate, this qualifies as a red herring. You're (*shoom*) missing this entire principle--that of freedom from imposed religion and/or spirituality in America. It isn't going to "kill" an individual to mandate attendance at Sunday (church) worships, but that is not how the freedom of 1) imposition of ideals; and 2) imposition religions work in this country.


Because court-mandated attendance is fundamentally unconstitutional. There have been individual suits filed and won over this. Look it up.


I never shyed from contrversial topics. My debating skills, logic, reasoning, and a growing perspicacious eye for the many logical fallacies people will throw at you, intentional or not, are expanding exponentially. It's what I was born for, and I love it.


:wavey: Mine aren't "theories" though; my statements in this topic come down to "wisdom is not knowing" if anything. The discussion has changed a slight bit to my personal staunch rejection of what I see as mythology being as accepted as ultimate truth.

Do you understand? To return to the topic-starter, I simply don't subsrcibe to a some higher superbeing having saved my life. When my AA friend made our friendship conditionnal upon me coming back to the same damned old meetings which for eight years never got me sober (you'll recall that ironically I got sober [i]when I stopped attending lol), it sparked me to write this.

Stits

Why stick your feet in the sand? In every one of the posts you quoted, you chose to quote only the contentious portions, not the positive or personal ones. No one is trying to pull you into Sunday school. I'll speak for myself-I would like you to know peace, and at least for me, the more aware I am of my spiritual life, the more tranquil I seem to be. The more hubristic and full of sarcasm I am, the less open I am to this all-to-hard to reach realm. Kserah really did a magnificent job describing spirituality, and I never once heard her mention any deity of any sort.

And as far as interpreting mandatory AA meetings as a violation of your civil liberties....well, I'm just going to say it. You are far more sensible than that, and YOU are the one using this argument as the red herring. Additionally, on the walls of every AA room I've ever been in are both, visible to all, the steps and traditions.

I don't ever remember reading anything about you must believe in God to attend, as the only requirement is the desire to stop drinking. And even if one is still drinking, uses it as a means of medicating self, or just really likes his Pabst Blue Ribbon, I promise you that if he has gotten to the point where he is being court ordered due to his drinking behavior, at one point or another he has contemplated quitting,maybe wished he wanted to stop, perhaps is frightened that despite the consequences he may face for his drinking, still chooses too. And more than likely there is a sober fellow/woman there who felt the same way at one time. Hopefully he/she will share. Hopefully this man will glean hope from it, and maybe return.

AA does not work if you don't get involved. It is a basic human need to have companions-AA provides this for many. It also unfortunately has alienated quite a few, to boot. AA, Synagogue, Church, Mosque- nomenclature, simply put. It's splitting hairs, and the reason that AA refers to it's higher power as "God as [i]we know him " is because to call him Buddha would be culturally alien to many. A name is a name, Stits.

Now back to this court appointed man.....should we send him to jail? Is that a better outcome, a better "protection" of his liberties? Maybe we should just let him keep driving drunk? What is your solution to this "infraction"? There have been law suits filed and won over defective thongs from Victoria's Secret, as well-so I hardly find that "justice" is served in all courtrooms. One can pick a part a word until the letters have no meaning anymore. The same is true for legislation, and most other things, if we get down to brass tacks.

If you choose to renounce, deny, scoff at or otherwise ignore the possibility of their being something higher in this vastly divine universe, okay. But to nit pick superfulous pieces of posts to "win" when many of these people are you friends, well that is a waste of a good noodle, in my opinion. And there is no "winning" in these arguments, as you have less proof that there is a power greater than man than does the man who believes. His proof? HE KNOWS.

Stits, it is not my intention to convert you, save you, or otherwise lead you by the nose to God. I just want you to enjoy your life, I have related to some of the things that you have written in the past, and they have helped me tremendously. I wish that I could provide the same for you- but this is ultimately my best solution for an existential problem. I'm not down playing your depression, nor excluding it from this equation. As stated before, I just want you to know peace and companionship, as you are far too unique to go without either.

Although, if I am ever inclined to buy a mule, I have a name picked out.... (we can smell our own kind, after all)
Jessica

Wow! Really well put! I just printed that out and taped it up by my monitor. We look so hard to find what we're all ready it. It's like looking for the ocean when we're standing in the water, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, please, cause I am wrong--once in a while! LOLOLOL

It is the reason that while I do not put down organized religion (any way you get there is a good way), but I don't find (for me) that going to a particular place on Sunday at a certain hour brings me any closer to an understanding of God. BUT--if it gets one to thinking about God and mankind, then what is the harm? It's just not for me, like AA is not for some. However, there is always something to get out of listening to someone else's story. If nothing other than we're pretty much all alike.

I think this has been a very enlightening thread. Ommmmmmmmmm.........

Hey, Jey.

Pabst? The still brew that sludge?

Good ol PBR... We used to make a Black and Cr@p instead of a Black and Tan, with Guiness and PBR.

I thought you a dixie for some reason...Pabst?It flows like water in this here red dirt district. Actually, Obama was seen drinking one in Ohio ( many thought it a vain attempt at trying to seem approachable to blue collar voters). He seems like more of a Pinot Noir man to me.

First Lynx4, I so agree with you!

There was a study done by the Univerisity of Washington in the early through the mid 80s.Since this thread started I have been trying to find it and I can't locate it.

Anyway the bottom line of the study was this. For people you go through residential treatment and then attend AA,they relapse at a higher rate,then people who just go through Res treatment. The theory was that people who attend AA percived that AA just added more stress and presure to their life,which led them to drink again.

If I remember correctly the study was well designed and lasted appox 5 years.And took place when residenial treatment centers were just starting to become quite common.

Nice recalling Fashana. The study reminds me of the academic authors Herbert Fingarette and especially if Stanton Peele from the eighties. They both touched on something a bit eerily similar to what you describe, the concept of self-efficacy and how AA/NA indoctrination strips members immediately of this all important self-concept.

First you're told you're powerless and defective. Then you're told you can't make it alone without close regular contact with a sponsor and the group. So, when comes a time when people really need this strong sense of self-reliance, even oldtimers are at a bit of a loss as to what to do. To say the least "withdrawals" from their comfort zone set in and high levels of stress and anxiety are experienced.

In this sense group dependence is a very real phenomenon.

Stits

Hehe *wink*. That's cute (and no offense taken ) but Jessica hon, suggest you look up! The subject title.(smile) This is an essentially antiestablishment topic I started in disbelief at how some some oldtimers just never change.

If it were you, I wouldn't call you stubborn, however poetically, for sharing this experience; for expressing honest exasperation.


Again, look up at my title.

You mentioned hubristic, implied cynicism, and sarcasm--astute! I give you an A+. lol I never got sober during my time there; why should be I moved to sing its praises? You might say, "Well you must not have followed...[fill in the blank]" and that would be the height of presumption. I mean - right? You and Kserah - you don't know me; cannot know my past; cannot accurately judge my early compliance with the program of AA. Speaking of which -

"AA does not work if you don't get involved." -- AA often doesn't "work" for the large demographic of individually minded thinkers who can spot the strained, ignominious juxtaposition of "moral defective character" (alcohol addiction has NOTHING to do with this), the early "disease" model, and the erroneous use of "allergy" as cause for the addiction.


Hmm lessee. A rose by any other name is still a rose. A bear is bear. A Stits is a Stits... and it is now revealed to us all that "a name is a name." Ahem. lol :lol5: Ok, Jess. If you say.


That is not a proof dear; that a strong subjective belief. As far as the burden of proof, it only rests upon the person doing the claiming. (One cannot prove there are not giant insects on Mars just outside the cameras' collective periphery.)

You can't prove a negative.

I am not looking to "win" points or whatever and it is unfortunate that you view my writings this way just because they can't easily be answered nor dismissed. I have always found culture and global divergent socio-belief systems fascinating.


Thank you! That's a ...nice thing to say. lol


Well, thanks. You must remember we (you and I) are essentially strangers but that is a nice thing to say.

Stits

Stits back off of Jessica! Grrr.. -- Kidding bro, I love you both... so settle down hehe.

As for 'AA' -- My consensus is as follows:

AA has merit. It shouldn't be abolished from the face of the planet.

AA is NOT for everyone.

AA works for some.

AA works EXTREMELY well for a small portion.

AA becomes a way of life for an even smaller portion,.. usually annoyingly so.

The program is old, dated, but still useful to society at large. Few come out of it drug free completely, and forever -- but some do. Further, it generally gives those that attend 'some' insight into their disease and some comfort in knowing they are not alone, etc , etc.

So it was/is obviously not for you , Sir Stits -- I have met quite a few who despise AA.. and then have met an equal amount that praise it , annoyingly so! Those who are praising it are happy and clean. Those who despise it , unfortunately are not. This is just my experience, but this is NOT to say that failure to agree with AA or attend is your ultimate doom to get free of addiction(s). There are many, many paths to freedom from addiction.. AA is but one tool that some can use proficiently,.. and some cannot.

I'm sure you get the point -- Now carry on with Jez..

[quote=stits] Nice recalling Fashana. The study reminds me of the academic authors Herbert Fingarette and especially if Stanton Peele from the eighties. They both touched on something a bit eerily similar to what you describe, the concept of self-efficacy and how AA/NA indoctrination strips members immediately of this all important self-concept.

First you're told you're powerless and defective. Then you're told you can't make it alone without close regular contact with a sponsor and the group. So, when comes a time when people really need this strong sense of self-reliance, even oldtimers are at a bit of a loss as to what to do. To say the least "withdrawals" from their comfort zone set in and high levels of stress and anxiety are
experienced.


Sits another issue mentioned in the study was the "culture
of can you top this". This culture can cause a lot of discomfort for people who have had one on one therapy.One reason being,a chance is not given for the "confesser" to resolve their feelings.
Does any of this make sense to you? I feel like I am trying to talk about something,I have never done,ie go to an AA meeting.