AA=Anti-atheists

[BlaqueKatt]

story here

Two atheist AA groups have been removed from the lists of AA meetings, and told they should've never been considered AA as "belief in a higher power is necessary to give up addiction" Um no it isn't.

6 of the twelve steps mention God-they rewrote them to a more "we are responsible for our own actions, and for fixing our flaws, not the cop out of 'it's god's will"

Personally I like the changes:

Original-6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.(yup it's all on god, we don't have to do anything, if he doesn't remove those flaws, it's not our fault, it's god's will)

Altered version-6. Were ready to accept help in letting go of all our defects of character.(look it's that mythical figure "personal responsibility!")

and no AA doesn't work any better than no treatment at all-it's been proven numerous times, but since AA doesn't like the data they ignore it and lie about their success rate....article on that here

[kiwi]

I think AA is a BS group anyway. They have a very low success rate and believe in a one approach fits all system.

[Nyoibo]

You mean the group where your sponsor is also your drinking buddy?

[Hyena Dandy]

Well, if they're a useless organization, what does it matter what they do?

And its not like they said these groups have to stop helping people. They just said these aren't official AA groups.

Anyway, if the official rules for AA mention God, then taking God out should mean you're not an AA group any more. That makes sense to me.

I mean, I don't really know anything about AA, but it seems like if they WERE a thing that had a winning formula, then changing the formula would be a good reason to say you're not part of our group any more.

As I said, I'm not necessarily saying that I know all about AA, but it seems to me that if you mention God in your 12 big rules, then you're a religious organization, yes?

[FArchivist]

Two atheist AA groups have been removed from the lists of AA meetings, and told they should've never been considered AA as "belief in a higher power is necessary to give up addiction" Um no it isn't.

Except that, unbeknown to most, AA is a religious-based organization. It was started by a movement of non-denominational Christian Protestant evangelists called The Oxford Group. This description is most apt: Its goal is to effect enough change in the alcoholic's thinking "to bring about recovery from alcoholism" through a spiritual awakening. A spiritual awakening is achieved by following the Twelve Steps, and sobriety is furthered by volunteering for AA and regular AA meeting attendance or contact with AA members.

The bolded part is my emphasis. Since atheists cannot undergo a spiritual awakening, as they do not believe in a spirit or soul, they do not fit within the AA structure. The AA is right to exclude them. They're not going to find what they are looking for in a faith-based organization.

[Nyoibo]

Since atheists cannot undergo a spiritual awakening, as they do not believe in a spirit or soul, they do not fit within the AA structure.

Not true, atheists do not believe in a deity, atheists may believe in a soul or spirit.

[Boozy]

I don't really understand why these groups are fighting.

The atheist "AA" group does not agree with the founding principles of the organization, and changed them to the point where they are no longer recognizable as the same group. The organization had every right to kick them out.

Why do the atheists not start another group? If they do, they can and should call it something else.

[BlaqueKatt]

Why do the atheists not start another group? If they do, they can and should call it something else.

the problem is when most people are referred to AODA programs(by the courts), they are ONLY given a list of AA/NA meetings. And the fact that they used the "12 steps" AA would sue the heck out of them.

[Sarah Valentine]

I think AA is a BS group anyway. They have a very low success rate

I V went to AA for 4 years and he still drinks, he's much better now though he used to have blackouts and couldn't remember shit.

[Andara Bledin]

So a group calls itself part of what is, at it's core, a religious organization, takes the religion out of the program, and then is upset when the organization kicks them out?

While I do disagree with the fact that the government only recognizes specific rehab programs, this is a problem to take up with government - I'm sure the separation of church and state and/or freedom of religion tenets can be use to great effect here - it is not the fault of said religious organization.

^-.-^

[Glados]

While I agree that the organisation should have every right to refuse to associate with groups that do not share in the founding principals, I also see why this is a problem. Atheist drinkers looking for a group will have a much harder time finding one if they are not listed with AA (the most known and advertised organisation). As mentioned before, the courts may not recognise attendance at these other groups as fulfilling the mandate to attend AA. Finally, there will possible be an issue when court-ordered treatment includes forced religion in the form of AA as there are no longer alternative groups available.

The goal is to help alcoholics and I see no reason why the two cannot work together towards this goal.

[Hyena Dandy]

If the problem is judges only recognize AA, that's something to take up with the judges. If AA wants to be a religious organization, they can be a religious organization.

[FArchivist]

Not true, atheists do not believe in a deity, atheists may believe in a soul or spirit.

If you believe in a soul or a spirit, that requires a supernatural explanation of some type, which does not tally with atheism's requirements of scientific rigor and definable explanations that can be scientifically proven. A person who does not believe in deities of any sort but believes in the existence of a soul/spirit would be best categorized as agnosticism or apatheism. Neither implicit or explicit atheism of either the strong or weak variety allow for a spirit/soul.

[Andara Bledin]

That depends on which type of atheist you are. Many atheists haven't decided so much that there is no god as they've decided that the existence of a god is irrelevant to them, or they haven't felt a need to put even that much thought into it and just don't believe because they feel no need to do so. The ones you speak of are those that are anti-religious atheists, who tend to be dogmatically against any concept that cannot be tested and proven. This is generally a vocal minority who, like the Churchian assholes being discussed in another thread, tend to cause people to think that everybody else who identifies as atheist are just as "fucked up."

As mentioned before, this is an issue where the government has created an unacceptable situation, and everybody is too busy being distracted by a side-show to focus on the real issue.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

That depends on which type of atheist you are. Many atheists haven't decided so much that there is no god as they've decided that the existence of a god is irrelevant to them, or they haven't felt a need to put even that much thought into it and just don't believe because they feel no need to do so.

Both of those would fall under the definition of "apatheism".