Happy Atheist Forum

Hey, y'all!  

I have some friends in the AA program, and we were talking about how you need to believe in God/a Higher Power in order for the program to work.  So what do atheists and agnostics do?  As a nurse, I get asked questions about addiction, etc, and I'd like to have an understanding of how it would work for someone who doesn't believe in God.  I looked on their website, and their "big book" does have a chapter on the issue, but their position is that if you don't believe in God, it's only because you've not wanted to think about it, or you have accepted lies in order to do what you want and not be responsible to anyone for your behavior.  Yeah, whatever.  The whole thing sounded like it was written and geared towards people having an education at the low end of mediocre.

Do you know anyone in AA that is atheist?  What do you think about it?

I've never met someone who was an atheist while they went through AA.  I have met (online) one guy who successfully completed AA then later became an atheist and still thinks AA is a good program.

I think AA is a bad idea for theists or atheists because it requires that the person believe they are unable to find the strength to overcome the addiction within themselves and therefore must look towards a "higher power" for help.  The only real way to overcome any addiction is to develop inner strength.

I have heard of there being secular versions of AA-like groups that work around finding personal strength and don't involve religious notions....there just probably aren't as many as those groups as there really should be.

My brother is in AA. He was an atheist before he started the program and is an atheist again. During the crucial first year though, he believed in a 'higher power' so the program could work.

It has to do with letting go of all the blame that alcoholics carry that causes them to go into a shame spiral and continue to drink. Whatever works, I guess.

My personal feelings on this, because I had to deal with my brother while he was drinking, is that if he had actually accepted any responsibility for anything, he probably wouldn't have been a drinker.

As far as I am concerned, alcoholism is NOT the problem. It is a symptom. Most alcoholics never delve into what actually turned them to drink in the first place.

Quote from: "Smarmy of One"if he had actually accepted any responsibility for anything, he probably wouldn't have been a drinker.

As far as I am concerned, alcoholism is NOT the problem. It is a symptom. Most alcoholics never delve into what actually turned them to drink in the first place.

Amen to that.  Life is all about personal choices and responsibility.

SOS International (Save Our Selves) is a secular version of AA.  I don't know if they are more successful than regular AA, which has an approximate success rate of 5% (according to what I've read in the past).

My father is an alcoholic who blames this on the fact that his uncle started giving him beer at age 11.  He doesn't see his drinking as a problem, nor does he acknowledge the fact that it affects the rest of the family.

Quote from: "MommaSquid"My father is an alcoholic who blames this on the fact that his uncle started giving him beer at age 11.  He doesn't see his drinking as a problem, nor does he acknowledge the fact that it affects the rest of the family.

That's really sad. Have you tried intervention?  If it's really bad, I suggest taking pictures or video of him after he has been drinking then showing it to him when he is sober.  My dad's dad was an alcoholic and not only drank himself to death but also made it so he was never around; I only met him once or twice.

I was given sips of beer since I was old enough to walk, my sister and I were allowed to drink wine with nice dinners since we were in grade school, and I was allowed to drink alcohol that my parents provided when I was in high school....I think it actually helpled me not to make some of the same mistakes many young people make with drinking since the forbidden appeal was never there.  So, I know that having alchohol at a young age doesn't mean you'll become an alcoholic;  I guess the young drinking thing is just another way to place blame elsewehre anyway.

Anyway, sorry about your dad.

QuoteMy brother is in AA. He was an atheist before he started the program and is an atheist again. During the crucial first year though, he believed in a 'higher power' so the program could work.

It has to do with letting go of all the blame that alcoholics carry that causes them to go into a shame spiral and continue to drink. Whatever works, I guess.

Wow, that is quite a transition!  Most of the time it is from believer--->non-believer---->believer.  I have never heard of the reciprocal occurring, though I suppose it could.   I would think that a better  alternative would be personal counseling combined with group support for the atheist.  I think for most people, support groups are key since humans are bent on the powerful group think dynamic straight out of the womb, but the individuals can use the group as a source of empowerment.  If one is already an atheist, then trying to subvert that with some sort of deistic therapy model seems counterintuitive.  I think atheists are on the average more logical and intelligent than most theists, so the therapeutic modality should use logic over fantasy for better effect.  What happens once the habit is kicked and the person goes back to their original world view (to atheism from deism)?  Does this put the person at risk of relapse?  I don't know...I'm just offering a different point of view.

Quote from: "Laetusatheos"That's really sad. Have you tried intervention? If it's really bad, I suggest taking pictures or video of him after he has been drinking then showing it to him when he is sober. My dad's dad was an alcoholic and not only drank himself to death but also made it so he was never around; I only met him once or twice.

My dad is also bi-polar, so any time we try to discuss his alcoholism he blames his problems on the meds he takes for his "other" issue.  Plus, mom covers for him most of the time...unless she's really pissed off with his behavior.  But eventually she forgives him and things go back to happy shiny.  I'm sure I'll get a call some day telling me he's in prison or the hospital.

Quote from: "Laetusatheos"I was given sips of beer since I was old enough to walk...So, I know that having alchohol at a young age doesn't mean you'll become an alcoholic;

I was given beer and wine as a very small child, too, so I agree that isn't the root cause of alcoholism.  I have a drink now and then, but I have no interest in getting really drunk.  After watching dad all those years, it just doesn't have much of an appeal.

Surely, the appeal of alcohol involves moderation.  Being really drunk is unpleasant, and being drunk all the time sounds horrible.

Quote from: "SteveS"Surely, the appeal of alcohol involves moderation.  Being really drunk is unpleasant, and being drunk all the time sounds horrible.

That's true for me.  I've always prefered a mild buzz to outright intoxication.  And I enjoy the taste of a good 7&7 far too much to down them in rapid succession.

I've thought about this. AA would send me running out of the room screaming and into a bottle of vodka, haha. I've heard people say that it's about finding a "higher power" and not necessarily God. Well, even if that were true, I'm sure at least 2/3 of the people in that room have God as their higher power and you'd have to listen to that junk all of the time. I think I would just go to rehab. Do the whole detox thing and find some hobbies to replace whatever the substance was.

Quote from: "Bella"I think I would just go to rehab. Do the whole detox thing and find some hobbies to replace whatever the substance was.

Bella, the vast majority of rehab centers require their patients to join a 12-step program during their rehab stay.  It's pretty hard to separate the two.  

Patients also get cognitive and behavioral therapy, but the 12-step crap is almost always mandatory.



Have any of you watched Celebrity Rehab?  It's sickening and compelling at the same time.   :?

Hi there, I am an atheist who has used AA. I liked everything about it except for the higher power stuff. I guess you could say I cherry picked what worked for me. Ultimately I have not used AA in my journey lately, but I know of people it has helped both theistis and non theist. There is good in AA, mainly the group mentality of people being there for people. I think that can work wonders for anyone, whether they believe in God or not.

Quote from: "Momma Squid"I enjoy the taste of a good 7&7 far too much to down them in rapid succession.

So it is with me and beer.  I enjoy it too much to just quaff pint after pint until I'm slobbering drunk.  I have been known to over indulge, but not frequently, and not too bad.  I figure everyone has to get a few good drunks in their life to experience it and to learn, but after those are out of your system an occasional decent buzz seems to suffice.

I do feel badly for the addicts, though --- it's got to be rough on you, and a hard habit to kick.

I don't have any experience at all, even through people I know, of AA --- but catwixen's comments above seem sound to me.

I've been sober in AA for 13 years.  Throughout that time I've looked at Christianity, new age spirituality, paganism and witchcraft, Buddhism, etc.  I found that atheism is far more sensible for reasons probably obvious to members on this site.  

Bill Wilson stated in his writings that the AA member could choose his/her own conception of god. I redefine god to mean any group of people who gather together to stay sober.  Service work and being a member of a community gives a deeper meaning to my life.  I'm sober and relatively happy with the direction of my life.  

If there are other AA members out there who are atheists please say hi.  

Scryer

Congratulations, SCRYER, and best wishes.  I'm glad you found a way to make AA work for you...sadly, many people don't.

Quote from: "Sophie"I have some friends in the AA program, and we were talking about how you need to believe in God/a Higher Power in order for the program to work.

This is not true. AA is probably going to fail whether you're Christian or not.

AA's success rate is the same as the success rate for quitting on your own.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Sophie"I have some friends in the AA program, and we were talking about how you need to believe in God/a Higher Power in order for the program to work.

This is not true. AA is probably going to fail whether you're Christian or not.

AA's success rate is the same as the success rate for quitting on your own.

Loffler, I think she meant that AA puts in the stipulation of believing in a higher power. also, while jumping right into the forum is highly encouraged, be aware that you are responding to some really old posts to people that aren't even here any more. Just an FYI thing.  

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Sophie"I have some friends in the AA program, and we were talking about how you need to believe in God/a Higher Power in order for the program to work.

This is not true. AA is probably going to fail whether you're Christian or not.

AA's success rate is the same as the success rate for quitting on your own.

Loffler, I think she meant that AA puts in the stipulation of believing in a higher power.

I know, and I wanted to point out that what makes that stipulation all the more infuriating is that AA doesn't even work.

Quotealso, while jumping right into the forum is highly encouraged, be aware that you are responding to some really old posts to people that aren't even here any more. Just an FYI thing.  

I'm ok with anyone responding to my posts, not just the original poster. I can't afford to be picky on forums where even the first page of threads goes back several months.

Believing in god is all about  believing a power which we need in order to help succeed and to back us in failure and hence i too believe in god.
----
sathyan

Alcoholism Information (http://www.alcoholisminformation.org)

This makes me think of an episode of House when Dr. House was in NA/AA and in group he said how he had gotten through all of the steps up to the "giving himself over to a higher power".  He said something like, I don't believe in a higher power so I am choosing Andrea the Giant, he's big, but I'm not sure he can handle my life so I'm just not ready to give myself over to Andrea yet. Hehe.

If you google there are several programs that cater to non-believers.  It's good to know there are options.  It makes sense that many of the rehabs out there involve God as a "step" as believers turn to their higher power in order to find strength and help, they don't generally think they can do it on their own and they of course believe that their God will help them.  It's pretty sad really that they don't rely on themselves, but, like most things they expect God to take care of everything.  Must be nice to have magical interventions......

Quote from: "The Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous"1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

I'm wondering if the tree in the front yard some people choose as their "god" in AA actually works for any of these after number five. I've always been skeptical of AA and other twelve-step programs. Then again, I have some friends who wouldn't be alive without AA. I also have some friends who didn't need AA and quit on their own using sheer willpower and support of family and friends. As Loffler said, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

AA to me has always had undertones of converting people when they are down, at their lowest and incredibly vulnrable. Not only is this in itself morally reprehensible, but it engenders a thought system I think is entirely useless at solving the problem.
People should take responsibility for their lives, whether this means escaping from their dependancy on booze or imaginary friends.

Quote[strike:1wur8ery]AA[/strike:1wur8ery] Religion to me has always had undertones of converting people when they are down, at their lowest and incredibly vulnrable.

There ya go, SSY, fixed that for you.  

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote[strike:xg6dfw78]AA[/strike:xg6dfw78] Religion to me has always had undertones of converting people when they are down, at their lowest and incredibly vulnrable.

There ya go, SSY, fixed that for you.  

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages45.fotki.com%2Fv1440%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2Ffryseewhatyoudidthere-vi.jpg&hash=b46e0907ff0e2574789b0ec0c45722aab923f5ac)

Quote from: "sathyan"Believing in god is all about  believing a power which we need in order to help succeed and to back us in failure and hence i too believe in god.
----
sathyan

Alcoholism Information (http://www.alcoholisminformation.org)

Believing in God does not help with recovery. At all.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "sathyan"Believing in god is all about  believing a power which we need in order to help succeed and to back us in failure and hence i too believe in god.
----
sathyan

Alcoholism Information (http://www.alcoholisminformation.org)

Believing in God does not help with recovery. At all.

I don't think we should presume to know what helps people through recovery or any trying time in their lives.  Each person gets through things in their own way.  Let's not pretend to know what works for everyone, we need to make sure we aren't saying the same thing to the religious that we don't want them saying to us.

Quote from: "VanReal"I don't think we should presume to know what helps people through recovery or any trying time in their lives.  Each person gets through things in their own way.  Let's not pretend to know what works for everyone, we need to make sure we aren't saying the same thing to the religious that we don't want them saying to us.

I think the point that's being made is that there is nothing about belief in God, specifically, that aids in recovery. That is to say, it's the aspect of support that is important, not the label placed on it. Hence AA's rather questionable interpretation of the "God" mentioned in the 12 steps.

Curio, I agree with that.  I was responding specifically to the statement that "it doesn't help. At all." Just seemed a little harsh.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "sathyan"Believing in god is all about  believing a power which we need in order to help succeed and to back us in failure and hence i too believe in god.
----
sathyan

Alcoholism Information (http://www.alcoholisminformation.org)

Believing in God does not help with recovery. At all.

I don't think we should presume to know what helps people through recovery or any trying time in their lives.  Each person gets through things in their own way.  Let's not pretend to know what works for everyone, we need to make sure we aren't saying the same thing to the religious that we don't want them saying to us.

Agreed. that's the kind of thing that can only be said for one's self (Loffler's comment). Having any type of carrot on a stick to follow, even if it's not real, can help a person recover from something. People often have to delude themselves in some way to get through difficult times.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "sathyan"Believing in god is all about  believing a power which we need in order to help succeed and to back us in failure and hence i too believe in god.
----
sathyan

Alcoholism Information (http://www.alcoholisminformation.org)

Believing in God does not help with recovery. At all.

I don't think we should presume to know what helps people through recovery or any trying time in their lives.  Each person gets through things in their own way.  Let's not pretend to know what works for everyone, we need to make sure we aren't saying the same thing to the religious that we don't want them saying to us.

I want them saying that to me too. I want everyone to give their opinion. I like open discourse because truth tends to defeat falsehood. The best favor you can do for falsehood is asking everyone to keep their opinions to themselves.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"People often have to delude themselves in some way to get through difficult times.

I'm unaware of any evidence indicating this is true.

People used to say prayer helped people recover. That turned out to be not only false, but people who knew they were being prayed for actually got worse.

People used to say optimism helped the sick recover. That, too, turned out to be feel-good hogwash.

People like to say belief in something got them through this or that. I don't see the evidence that scientifically establishes controls and variables to help establish that this age-old claim is anything more than wishful thinking and yet another symptom in the grocery list of symptoms of religious delusion.

Loffler,  open discorse is terrific!  Open discorse is not making a blanket statement about what works and what doesn't, that's very individual and just saying "it doesn't work. At all" is not opening a conversation, it's closing one or stopping any from starting.

Quote from: "VanReal"Loffler,  open discorse is terrific!  Open discorse is not making a blanket statement about what works and what doesn't, that's very individual and just saying "it doesn't work. At all" is not opening a conversation, it's closing one or stopping any from starting.

It's an invitation for someone making the claim to back it up.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "VanReal"Loffler,  open discorse is terrific!  Open discorse is not making a blanket statement about what works and what doesn't, that's very individual and just saying "it doesn't work. At all" is not opening a conversation, it's closing one or stopping any from starting.

It's an invitation for someone making the claim to back it up.

Not a very inviting one.  More of an invitation to an argument that will go no where since you have left no room for debate...blanket absolute stated right out of the box.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"People often have to delude themselves in some way to get through difficult times.

I'm unaware of any evidence indicating this is true.

People used to say prayer helped people recover. That turned out to be not only false, but people who knew they were being prayed for actually got worse.

People used to say optimism helped the sick recover. That, too, turned out to be feel-good hogwash.

People like to say belief in something got them through this or that. I don't see the evidence that scientifically establishes controls and variables to help establish that this age-old claim is anything more than wishful thinking and yet another symptom in the grocery list of symptoms of religious delusion.

I'd be interested to read anything that completely discounts that having an optimistic attiude doesn't help recovery in at least some cases, and also what kind of "sick" are you talking about? It's a pretty vague word. Obviously being optimistic isn't going to cure AIDS.

And "scientific evidence" aside concerning my previous claim, here are some examples:

Your (hypothetical) daughter, who is not very attractive, has been rejected by a popular, handsome boy in school, and she's heartbroken. Do you tell her "Look, you're not very good looking, and looks are very important. You're being irrational; aim lower." No, you delude her a bit and tell her she's pretty and too good for him. if you think it would help a teenage girl to "tell it like it is", you've obvioulsy never known one..

A person in a tough econcomy is having problems finding work, and all prospects are looking grim. It's beneficial for that person to remain optimistic, even if they have no current reason to be, if it motivates them to keep looking for work.

And from actual studies:

The obvious: Having an optimistic outlook can help prevent depression, thus boosting the immune system, which leads to better health in general.

Studies have shown that patients with heart disease who maintained optimistic outlooks were twice as likely to survive than pessimists.

Studies have found that many wealthy, successful people have a bloated sense of their own abilities and intelligence. This self-delusion is a factor in their willingness to take chances.

The higher a soldier's intelligence, the more likely they are to die in combat. Some thick-headed soldier who has some sort of "faith", even if its just a self deluded notion that he's an invincible super-soldier, might be more likely to make quick, life saving decisions than a soldier who's really accepting the reality of his situation and thus trying to rely primarily on his intellect to survive.

None of these things are black and white, so I'm curious as to why you exhibit a narrow-minded selection bias in favor of certain studies.

Is beleiving in God going to lessen the pain of withdrawl? I doubt it, but if you think that a person's beliefs can't help them psychologically to DEAL with things, then you're deluded. I grew up in the church scene, and I've seen alcoholics turn their lives over to God and quit EVERYTHING, cigarettes included. they would obsess over the Bible, pray, etc, filling the "holes" in with faith based reasoning and their desire to please God, or maintaining a beleif that God was helping them. I'm not a theist, but I did something similar when I was younger and got into something bad for a while. I decided I had to stop before I really got into it, and forced myself through withdrawal. You know what got me through the pain and discomfort? I kept forcing myself to interpret the pain as "a good feeling", kind of like what I did when I ran in high school track, and I kept deluding myself into thinking that I didn't feel good when I did that stuff, despite the fact that I did. So, regardless of what you think, willing self delusion helped me through a hard time.

Ever hear of the placebo effect? Do you actually believe that the mind has NOTHING to do with the body?

 There is a wealth of information out there that supports what I said, from the psychological level to the biological. I'm putting the burden of proof on you to show me that optimism doesn't help with recovery at all.

Well said Miss Anthrope.  It's also easy to provide information on the opposite.  Being negative (or pessimistic) can lead to health problems, financial, problems, relationship problems, and mental health issues.  It starts in the brain and worms it's way through your life causing a lack of motivation, action, poor bahavior and decision making, and also health problems.  Much like moods and thoughts that are stressful cause my manic side to rear it's ugly head, good and optimistic thoughts help me to even out, gain more control, finish projects, lower my heart rate, and dip back into reality long enough to realize what's happening.  The mind is a powerful thing and while it's certainly not a cure for AIDS (as someone mentioned) it can have powerful effects on recovery and even physical health if you can use it wisely.

I had a little difficulty with some of the quotes of your last post, couldn't tell who was saying what in the first part or where the original quote ended.

I want to know how the stop smoking thing worked, arggghh, none of my mind trickery or hand-wringing has been effective!  

Quote from: "VanReal"I had a little difficulty with some of the quotes of your last post, couldn't tell who was saying what in the first part or where the original quote ended.

Fixed! Somehow the first bracket disappeared.

Quote from: "VanReal"I want to know how the stop smoking thing worked, arggghh, none of my mind trickery or hand-wringing has been effective!  :lol:

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"Ditto here. I've come close, but my "this discomfort feels good" trick wasn't much help in the case of nicotine addicition. I might try my dad's trick, he quit almost 10 years ago for good by smoking half a cig at a time and saving all the clips, and then steadily tapering down with those. I've decided not to waste money on the gum, everyone I know who's tried it ended up smoking more heavily after slipping up. It's better to try and minimize the nicotine in your system like my dad did, I think, rather than just substitute the source.

Or you could contract Hepititis A somehow, one of the potential symptoms is sudden distaste for tobacco. ;)

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "VanReal"Loffler,  open discorse is terrific!  Open discorse is not making a blanket statement about what works and what doesn't, that's very individual and just saying "it doesn't work. At all" is not opening a conversation, it's closing one or stopping any from starting.

It's an invitation for someone making the claim to back it up.

Not a very inviting one.  More of an invitation to an argument that will go no where since you have left no room for debate...blanket absolute stated right out of the box.

Allow me to rephrase: say, is there any science behind the old assumption that superstition helps people recover? Or should I just play along and pretend it's a foregone conclusion?

I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have made it except for their religious beliefs. I'm equally sure there are people who were made worse by their religious beliefs. I'd like to see some evidence that the former outnumber the latter.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"Your (hypothetical) daughter, who is not very attractive, has been rejected by a popular, handsome boy in school, and she's heartbroken. Do you tell her "Look, you're not very good looking, and looks are very important. You're being irrational; aim lower." No, you delude her a bit and tell her she's pretty and too good for him. if you think it would help a teenage girl to "tell it like it is", you've obvioulsy never known one..

I wouldn't have the heart to tell her the truth. That doesn't mean my encouragement will suddenly make her pretty. It might make her feel pretty. Similarly, religion sometimes makes people think they're not going to die.

I like your analogy, it is very fitting.

QuoteThe obvious: Having an optimistic outlook can help prevent depression, thus boosting the immune system, which leads to better health in general.

Not so obvious. A person with a positive outlook isn't depressed. There's a difference in an "obvious truth" and a "tautology." From personal experience with a real Debbie Downer of an ex-girlfriend, telling her to cheer up only made her worse.

QuoteStudies have found that many wealthy, successful people have a bloated sense of their own abilities and intelligence. This self-delusion is a factor in their willingness to take chances.

And a high percentage of lottery winners played the lottery. I'd like to know more about the people who aren't successful. How many of them are delusional about not only their abilities but their success?

QuoteNone of these things are black and white, so I'm curious as to why you exhibit a narrow-minded selection bias in favor of certain studies.

If I'm aware of two contradictory studies, I go back to an agnostic square one until further notice. Which is where I am right now. I have no reason to believe optimism helps, so I won't believe it until the data is clearer. Sorta like my God policy.

QuoteI grew up in the church scene, and I've seen alcoholics turn their lives over to God and quit EVERYTHING, cigarettes included.

That would be a compelling anecdote if you didn't grow up in the church scene.

QuoteI decided I had to stop before I really got into it, and forced myself through withdrawal. You know what got me through the pain and discomfort? I kept forcing myself to interpret the pain as "a good feeling", kind of like what I did when I ran in high school track, and I kept deluding myself into thinking that I didn't feel good when I did that stuff, despite the fact that I did. So, regardless of what you think, willing self delusion helped me through a hard time.

That is nothing like religion. Forcing yourself to "believe" something is several tiers under actually believing it.

QuoteEver hear of the placebo effect? Do you actually believe that the mind has NOTHING to do with the body?

Yes I have. And it can skew data in both directions. Sometimes it makes people better, sometimes it makes them worse.

QuoteThere is a wealth of information out there that supports what I said, from the psychological level to the biological. I'm putting the burden of proof on you to show me that optimism doesn't help with recovery at all.

Next you should make me prove God doesn't exist. I can't do that either, and for the same reason.

Quote from: "Loffler"Allow me to rephrase: say, is there any science behind the old assumption that superstition helps people recover? Or should I just play along and pretend it's a foregone conclusion?

I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have made it except for their religious beliefs. I'm equally sure there are people who were made worse by their religious beliefs. I'd like to see some evidence that the former outnumber the latter.

I'm not sure there needs to be science to back this up.  There's not any hard science that determines a person is an addict, although we can use soft sciences (like psychology) to determine characterstic behavior and our sense of observation.  If a person recovers from an addiction and used religion as a tool to do so then that helped them.  If someone recovered and used sheer will-power and self awareness then they did not.  If I do yoga to calm myself when stressed there is no scientific evidence that the yoga is helping me, other than the fact that I think it does, and therefore my stress releases.

Hard science doesn't answer everything, especially when it comes to human emotion and correcting behavior.  Because religion would not work for you, or I and would actually distract my ability to recover we can't say that it doesn't help others recover.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"Allow me to rephrase: say, is there any science behind the old assumption that superstition helps people recover? Or should I just play along and pretend it's a foregone conclusion?

I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have made it except for their religious beliefs. I'm equally sure there are people who were made worse by their religious beliefs. I'd like to see some evidence that the former outnumber the latter.

I'm not sure there needs to be science to back this up.  There's not any hard science that determines a person is an addict, although we can use soft sciences (like psychology) to determine characterstic behavior and our sense of observation.  If a person recovers from an addiction and used religion as a tool to do so then that helped them.  If someone recovered and used sheer will-power and self awareness then they did not.  If I do yoga to calm myself when stressed there is no scientific evidence that the yoga is helping me, other than the fact that I think it does, and therefore my stress releases.

Hard science doesn't answer everything, especially when it comes to human emotion and correcting behavior.  Because religion would not work for you, or I and would actually distract my ability to recover we can't say that it doesn't help others recover.

I didn't say hard or soft science, I just said science. By your logic I could smoke weed and do yoga, and since I calmed down they both calmed me down. You're suggesting it's impossible to separate correlation but not causation, but worse than that you're suggesting correlations should nevertheless be honored as causations.

Quote from: "Loffler"I didn't say hard or soft science, I just said science. By your logic I could smoke weed and do yoga, and since I calmed down they both calmed me down. You're suggesting it's impossible to separate correlation but not causation, but worse than that you're suggesting correlations should nevertheless be honored as causations.

No, you are not reading and are instead forming an opinion of what I say based on your own argument.  What I am saying is that when you are dealing with a corrective action for a behavior you are trying to stop, that what works for one does not work for every one, but what works for that one person is what works for that one person.  There is no need for scientific proof that it worked, the fact that the behavior has been corrected provides the evidence of what worked for that person.

If Jane is an cocaine addict and she enters recovery using her religion as a tool throughout that recovery and as a tool of maintaining that recovery then her religious tool worked to help her.  There is no need for scientific evidence to determine how she recovered, it's a mental recovery, a corrected behavior that she worked through by using religion.

Likewise, if Jim is a cocaine addict and he enters recovery and uses exercise as his tool throughout that recovery and as a tool of maintaining that recovery then his exercise tool worked to help him.  There is no need for scientific evidence to determine how he recovered, blah, blah, blah, he recovered and he did so by using exercise.

I Paul stops sniffing cocaine simply by sheer willpower then he recovered without the use of an external tool.

You can't say that something doesn't work because there is no science to document why it worked, it worked there's no way to argue that it didn't.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"I didn't say hard or soft science, I just said science. By your logic I could smoke weed and do yoga, and since I calmed down they both calmed me down. You're suggesting it's impossible to separate correlation but not causation, but worse than that you're suggesting correlations should nevertheless be honored as causations.

No, you are not reading and are instead forming an opinion of what I say based on your own argument.  What I am saying is that when you are dealing with a corrective action for a behavior you are trying to stop, that what works for one does not work for every one, but what works for that one person is what works for that one person.  There is no need for scientific proof that it worked, the fact that the behavior has been corrected provides the evidence of what worked for that person.

If Jane is an cocaine addict and she enters recovery using her religion as a tool throughout that recovery and as a tool of maintaining that recovery then her religious tool worked to help her.  There is no need for scientific evidence to determine how she recovered, it's a mental recovery, a corrected behavior that she worked through by using religion.

Likewise, if Jim is a cocaine addict and he enters recovery and uses exercise as his tool throughout that recovery and as a tool of maintaining that recovery then his exercise tool worked to help him.  There is no need for scientific evidence to determine how he recovered, blah, blah, blah, he recovered and he did so by using exercise.

I Paul stops sniffing cocaine simply by sheer willpower then he recovered without the use of an external tool.

You can't say that something doesn't work because there is no science to document why it worked, it worked there's no way to argue that it didn't.

Then if I recover from alcoholism the same day a tree falls in my yard, a falling tree helped cure my alcoholism.

First of all, I want to re-cap my original statement: "People often have to delude themselves in some way to get through difficult times."

You completely dismissed this claim, yet everyone I have ever known has exhibited the behavior I described in some form or another.
I was not specifically talking about religion, only making the connection to argue your hard assertions.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"The obvious: Having an optimistic outlook can help prevent depression, thus boosting the immune system, which leads to better health in general.

Quote from: "Loffler"Not so obvious. A person with a positive outlook isn't depressed. There's a difference in an "obvious truth" and a "tautology." From personal experience with a real Debbie Downer of an ex-girlfriend, telling her to cheer up only made her worse.

when did I ever claim that telling someone to cheer up would make them feel better? I was merely pointing out that there is a connection between optimism and health, from which we can infer that being optimistic can help people get better physically if for no other reason that it prevents depression, which weakens the immune system.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"Studies have found that many wealthy, successful people have a bloated sense of their own abilities and intelligence. This self-delusion is a factor in their willingness to take chances.

Quote from: "Loffler"And a high percentage of lottery winners played the lottery. I'd like to know more about the people who aren't successful. How many of them are delusional about not only their abilities but their success?

Did I say all people with self-delusions become successful? No, I was pointing out another piece of evidence that self-delusion can result in beneficial behavior.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"None of these things are black and white, so I'm curious as to why you exhibit a narrow-minded selection bias in favor of certain studies.

Quote from: "Loffler"If I'm aware of two contradictory studies, I go back to an agnostic square one until further notice. Which is where I am right now. I have no reason to believe optimism helps, so I won't believe it until the data is clearer. Sorta like my God policy.

So, despite mountains of information showing that it's beneficial for one's health in general to be optimistic, you're waiting for a conclusive statement like:
"Optimism is not beneficial for health nor does it ever aid in recovery." You'll NEVER see it, just as you'll never see "Pessimism will always ruin your health and make you fail at everything."

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"I grew up in the church scene, and I've seen alcoholics turn their lives over to God and quit EVERYTHING, cigarettes included.

Quote from: "Loffler"That would be a compelling anecdote if you didn't grow up in the church scene.

Oh, I see, just becasue I was forced to go to church as a kid, I'm not capable of looking at these things objectively? So, my observations of things that actually happened, things which even as a kid I did not assume were becasue of God, are skewed simply becasue I went to church? You're making a very uninformed assumption about what I believed and how I interpeted my observations. Even as kid, an unusually introspective one I might add, I made the connection that what those people were doing was akin to how I might substitute another activity for playing videogames if my system stopped working.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"I decided I had to stop before I really got into it, and forced myself through withdrawal. You know what got me through the pain and discomfort? I kept forcing myself to interpret the pain as "a good feeling", kind of like what I did when I ran in high school track, and I kept deluding myself into thinking that I didn't feel good when I did that stuff, despite the fact that I did. So, regardless of what you think, willing self delusion helped me through a hard time.

Quote from: "Loffler"That is nothing like religion. Forcing yourself to "believe" something is several tiers under actually believing it.

Exactly, so why doesn't it make sense to you that earnest, deluded belief can be even MORE effective at changing one's behavior and helping them through something? If I actually beleived that God was upset with me and my eternal soul was at risk, or I had a placebo-like firm belief that god was "helping" me, then from my experience it's pretty easy to infer that that would aid my recovery. Factor in that I've seen people do it, and I think it's pretty logical to argue your claim that "Believing in God does not help with recovery. At all." as if its fact.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"There is a wealth of information out there that supports what I said, from the psychological level to the biological. I'm putting the burden of proof on you to show me that optimism doesn't help with recovery at all.

Quote from: "Loffler"Next you should make me prove God doesn't exist. I can't do that either, and for the same reason.

There's no evidence to support the existence or non-existence of a deity, only evidence that contradicts ancient claims about god. It's a concept outside of the realm of scientific studies. Again, you made this claim, which I argued against" "Believing in God does not help with recovery. At all." This is something you believe for which there are plenty of studies and evidence to prove wrong. And then you said "I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have made it except for their religious beliefs." I'm abit confused as to how your belief system works; most of what you say seems to favor the belief that optimism/beleif in God is not helpful, so I would like to see something you've read that supports this since you decided to prolong an argument, an argument that I've included readily available, easy to find information for on my side.

So, you don't like your hard assertions being argued against, and then you avoid bringing anything to the table to support your claims. This is nothing like asking you to prove that God deosn't exist. I'm simply asking to see information that has resulted in what you believe.

Quote from: "Loffler"Then if I recover from alcoholism the same day a tree falls in my yard, a falling tree helped cure my alcoholism.

If you recover from alcoholism in one day then you were not an alchoholic in the first place.  We are talking about recovery here, a lenghty process of behavioral change.  You minimizing it to the above statement makes me think you are not sure of what recovery consists of.  No one claimed that these people who use faith to get them through events or to reach their long term goal looked up at the sky and said a prayer and "voila" they were cured.  I specifically said using religion as a tool during the recovery process and for maintenance afterward.  The above statement is simplistic and not on point.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"I didn't say hard or soft science, I just said science. By your logic I could smoke weed and do yoga, and since I calmed down they both calmed me down. You're suggesting it's impossible to separate correlation but not causation, but worse than that you're suggesting correlations should nevertheless be honored as causations.

No, you are not reading and are instead forming an opinion of what I say based on your own argument.  What I am saying is that when you are dealing with a corrective action for a behavior you are trying to stop, that what works for one does not work for every one, but what works for that one person is what works for that one person.  There is no need for scientific proof that it worked, the fact that the behavior has been corrected provides the evidence of what worked for that person.

If Jane is an cocaine addict and she enters recovery using her religion as a tool throughout that recovery and as a tool of maintaining that recovery then her religious tool worked to help her.  There is no need for scientific evidence to determine how she recovered, it's a mental recovery, a corrected behavior that she worked through by using religion.

Likewise, if Jim is a cocaine addict and he enters recovery and uses exercise as his tool throughout that recovery and as a tool of maintaining that recovery then his exercise tool worked to help him.  There is no need for scientific evidence to determine how he recovered, blah, blah, blah, he recovered and he did so by using exercise.

I Paul stops sniffing cocaine simply by sheer willpower then he recovered without the use of an external tool.

You can't say that something doesn't work because there is no science to document why it worked, it worked there's no way to argue that it didn't.

Then if I recover from alcoholism the same day a tree falls in my yard, a falling tree helped cure my alcoholism.

Are you kidding me? You're equating perfectly rational arguments that involve things like excercise and active, applied beliefs, both of which have mountains of sceintific data from psychological and biological perspectives to back them up, with a tree falling in the yard?

After reading that, I'm done arguing with Loffler. You're doing a great job, VanReal, but seriously, nothing you say is going to matter.

I know Miss - fork me, I'm done.  

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"First of all, I want to re-cap my original statement: "People often have to delude themselves in some way to get through difficult times."

And sometimes their delusions hurt them. The burden is on you to prove one happens more than the other.

QuoteYou completely dismissed this claim, yet everyone I have ever known has exhibited the behavior I described in some form or another.

I don't doubt that for a second. You said you grew up in a church environment, so obviously this will be the case.

QuoteI was not specifically talking about religion, only making the connection to argue your hard assertions.

Soft assertions. I'm the only one here appealing to the lack of data.

Quote

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"The obvious: Having an optimistic outlook can help prevent depression, thus boosting the immune system, which leads to better health in general.

Quote from: "Loffler"Not so obvious. A person with a positive outlook isn't depressed. There's a difference in an "obvious truth" and a "tautology." From personal experience with a real Debbie Downer of an ex-girlfriend, telling her to cheer up only made her worse.

when did I ever claim that telling someone to cheer up would make them feel better? I was merely pointing out that there is a connection between optimism and health, from which we can infer that being optimistic can help people get better physically if for no other reason that it prevents depression, which weakens the immune system.

Link please.

Quote

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"Studies have found that many wealthy, successful people have a bloated sense of their own abilities and intelligence. This self-delusion is a factor in their willingness to take chances.

Quote from: "Loffler"And a high percentage of lottery winners played the lottery. I'd like to know more about the people who aren't successful. How many of them are delusional about not only their abilities but their success?

Did I say all people with self-delusions become successful?

Did I say you did?

QuoteNo, I was pointing out another piece of evidence that self-delusion can result in beneficial behavior.

It can also result in a negative outcome, too. There's no end to the list of things something CAN do. I want to know what it can do to a statistically significant degree.

Quote

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"None of these things are black and white, so I'm curious as to why you exhibit a narrow-minded selection bias in favor of certain studies.

Quote from: "Loffler"If I'm aware of two contradictory studies, I go back to an agnostic square one until further notice. Which is where I am right now. I have no reason to believe optimism helps, so I won't believe it until the data is clearer. Sorta like my God policy.

So, despite mountains of information showing that it's beneficial for one's health in general to be optimistic,

Mountains of information you are somehow unable to link to.

Quoteyou're waiting for a conclusive statement like:
"Optimism is not beneficial for health nor does it ever aid in recovery." You'll NEVER see it, just as you'll never see "Pessimism will always ruin your health and make you fail at everything."

No, I want to see evidence that optimism helps more than it hurts. Do you understand the difference in that statement and the weaker statement "optimism can help," when doesn't really say anything?

Quote

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"I grew up in the church scene, and I've seen alcoholics turn their lives over to God and quit EVERYTHING, cigarettes included.

Quote from: "Loffler"That would be a compelling anecdote if you didn't grow up in the church scene.

Oh, I see, just becasue I was forced to go to church as a kid, I'm not capable of looking at these things objectively?

No genius, I mean you're going to see more people helped by God if you're around Christians all day. It's a biased sample.

QuoteSo, my observations of things that actually happened, things which even as a kid I did not assume were becasue of God, are skewed simply becasue I went to church? You're making a very uninformed assumption about what I believed and how I interpeted my observations.

I don't have to make any assumptions, I can see the flaw in just the data you're giving me.

QuoteEven as kid, an unusually introspective one I might add, I made the connection that what those people were doing was akin to how I might substitute another activity for playing videogames if my system stopped working.

Quote from: "Loffler"That is nothing like religion. Forcing yourself to "believe" something is several tiers under actually believing it.

Exactly, so why doesn't it make sense to you that earnest, deluded belief can be even MORE effective at changing one's behavior and helping them through something? If I actually beleived that God was upset with me and my eternal soul was at risk, or I had a placebo-like firm belief that god was "helping" me, then from my experience it's pretty easy to infer that that would aid my recovery. Factor in that I've seen people do it, and I think it's pretty logical to argue your claim that "Believing in God does not help with recovery. At all." as if its fact.

Sorry, your anecdotal experience isn't enough. It has nothing to do with you: no one's anecdotal experience is enough.

Quote

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"There is a wealth of information out there that supports what I said, from the psychological level to the biological. I'm putting the burden of proof on you to show me that optimism doesn't help with recovery at all.

Quote from: "Loffler"Next you should make me prove God doesn't exist. I can't do that either, and for the same reason.

There's no evidence to support the existence or non-existence of a deity, only evidence that contradicts ancient claims about god. It's a concept outside of the realm of scientific studies. Again, you made this claim, which I argued against" "Believing in God does not help with recovery. At all." This is something you believe for which there are plenty of studies and evidence to prove wrong. And then you said "I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have made it except for their religious beliefs." I'm abit confused as to how your belief system works; most of what you say seems to favor the belief that optimism/beleif in God is not helpful, so I would like to see something you've read that supports this since you decided to prolong an argument, an argument that I've included readily available, easy to find information for on my side.

I must have missed the links you provided, please point that post out to me.

QuoteSo, you don't like your hard assertions being argued against, and then you avoid bringing anything to the table to support your claims. This is nothing like asking you to prove that God doesn't exist. I'm simply asking to see information that has resulted in what you believe.

The rest of my response can be summed up as "Link Please." You need to start backing up your statements.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"Then if I recover from alcoholism the same day a tree falls in my yard, a falling tree helped cure my alcoholism.

If you recover from alcoholism in one day then you were not an alchoholic in the first place.  We are talking about recovery here, a lenghty process of behavioral change.

Fine, 100 trees then. Jesus Christ.

QuoteYou minimizing it to the above statement makes me think you are not sure of what recovery consists of.  No one claimed that these people who use faith to get them through events or to reach their long term goal looked up at the sky and said a prayer and "voila" they were cured.  I specifically said using religion as a tool during the recovery process and for maintenance afterward.  The above statement is simplistic and not on point.

Correlation does not imply causation. I don't know how else to explain this concept to you.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"Are you kidding me? You're equating perfectly rational arguments that involve things like exercise and active, applied beliefs, both of which have mountains of sceintific data from psychological and biological perspectives to back them up, with a tree falling in the yard?

No. If there is scientific data to back it up, I would love to see it. Until then, you're parroting "conventional wisdom" and not providing anything substantial.

In fact, all anyone has done in this thread is try to explain it to me using argumentation, with statements like "C'mon if he prays and recovers then obviously prayer helped!" I'm amazed anyone on this forum would say that, and not because it's prayer. It's a major failure of logic to assume two things occurring at the same time have to be connected just because someone claims they are.

Here's a novel idea: maybe some of the things that people think help them recover DON'T help them. Of course, that would be impossible in VanReal's world, where everything you think helps you does help you.

QuoteAfter reading that, I'm done arguing with Loffler.

Yeah, I could tell from your other post you were done.

I'm open to the possibility that faith helps people recover. I'm a man of science. I change my beliefs with the data. Just send me some convincing links and I'll change my opinion. I do it all the time.

Quote from: "VanReal"I know Miss - fork me, I'm done.  

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading on this thread. I didn't know there were atheists who weren't also skeptics.

Everything that someone thinks helped their recovery actually helped their recovery? How can you possibly think like that?

Loffler, I am going to reply, although I feel like I'm indulging some strange performance art. I don't feel like taking the time to do quotes, so here you go:

I never ONCE said ANYTHING about whether delusions harm or help more people. Why should the burden be on me to prove something I never even claimed? Do you even know what you're arguing about? Also, it seems that your logic is: If fewer people are helped by delusion/optimism, then it must be a scientific fact that such things do not help with recovery.

You seem fixated on the fact that a good portion of my childhood involved church, but there's much more to it: People going through bad breakups, people dealing  with self-esteem issues, people dealing with addictions. High school alone was like a showcase in delusion. So, no, I'm not simply drawing on experiences from church, I'm drawing from people in general, church was just another place I witnessed such behavior.

What lack of data? Why do I have to link to anything? I already played your game on my Joker thread, sending you the first link that came up when I typed in "joker philosophy" when you didn't believe that there could be people out there who idolized the Joker. Seriously, Google any combo of words like "optimism health depression immune system" etc. The things I said are generally accepted by the scientific community.
I'm not unable to link to anything, I just don't think in a world with Google I should have to baby-step you to information my little sister could find in about 10 seconds.

"C'mon if he prays and recovers then obviously prayer helped!" - I searched this whole thread and nobody ever made that statement.

Excercise helps release endorphins and staves off depression, increases circulation, hastens the metabolization of toxins, etc, all of which are beneficial to a person trying to kick a bad habit. Yet you compare something like that to a tree falling. What I find really odd is that, for some reason, 100 trees falling is supposed to be a better example? What does the quantity of falling trees have to do with anything?

And once again, you made the hardest assertions without offering anything, all you did was deflect. This all started becasue you made a declarative statement that you can't back up, "Believing in God does not help with recovery. At all." Arguments agaisnt this were very clear in stating that this cannot be said for everyone. You argued back because of "lack of evidence". Worse, your last lengthy set of responses to me were from a "higher statistics" point of view, WHICH WAS NEVER PART OF THE ARGUMENT TO BEGIN WITH. Essentially, you have changed the fundamental theme of the argument as you go along. You're either doing this for fun just to frustrate people, or all of this is actually a window into your thought processes. In the former case, it's psychologically fascinating.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "VanReal"I know Miss - fork me, I'm done.  

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading on this thread. I didn't know there were atheists who weren't also skeptics.

Everything that someone thinks helped their recovered actually helped their recovery? How can you possibly think like that?

If something helps someone get through recovery even if its just because it gives them motivation or distraction, then of course it helped them! How can you even argue with that? If someone says "Rubber ducks" got me through my recovery but they never used/thought/whatever a rubber duck, then of ocurse you'd have to question their sanity. If the person fixated on rubber ducks, playing with constantly, talking to them, etc as a distraction, well, you could STILL question their sanity but the fact remains that rubber ducks helped them with their recovery.

I'm not done arguing, you're too much fun.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "VanReal"I know Miss - fork me, I'm done.  

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading on this thread. I didn't know there were atheists who weren't also skeptics.

Everything that someone thinks helped their recovered actually helped their recovery? How can you possibly think like that?

If something helps someone get through recovery even if its just because it gives them motivation or distraction, then of course it helped them! How can you even argue with that? If someone says "Rubber ducks" got me through my recovery but they never used/thought/whatever a rubber duck, then of ocurse you'd have to question their sanity. If the person fixated on rubber ducks, playing with constantly, talking to them, etc as a distraction, well, you could STILL question their sanity but the fact remains that rubber ducks helped them with their recovery.

And there we have the disagreement in a nutshell. It's possible the person is wrong about the rubber duck helping them, even if they think it did. We can't just give out credit willy nilly to everything that was involved in a person's recovery. Well, we can -- if we want to be wrong.

Some people recover despite the rubber ducks in their life. Maybe I recovered, but I would have recovered faster if I'd stopped eating the magical paint chips that happened to contain lead traces. To hear you tell it, the paint chips helped me, because look at the evidence: I was sick, I ate the paint chips, I got better. That's a closed case in your book.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"I'm not unable to link to anything, I just don't think in a world with Google I should have to baby-step you to information my little sister could find in about 10 seconds.

Ok ok, I'll Google, let's see what I come up with:

"The idea that if you're not an optimist, you're not going to do as well with this disease is just wrong, and it's a terrible thing to lay on people," Holland tells WebMD. "What this confirms is that if you're not optimistic by nature, it won't affect your cancer." (http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20040209/attitude-doesnt-affect-cancer-survival)

Of course, that's just one doctor and author. He could be wrong. And that's cancer, not addiction. Let's Google Alcoholics Anonymous's success rate:

The biggest problem with Alcoholics Anonymous is that it has a very low success rate for long term sobriety. Accurate statistics are hard to come by because of many factors, such as anonymity and dishonesty, but most studies reveal that it only has about a 2.5% success rate for over 5 years of sobriety. Some statistics have it as low as %1. (http://www.alternatives-for-alcoholism.com/alcoholics-anonymous.html)

Man, maybe I'm just a bad Googler.

Quote from: "Loffler"And there we have the disagreement in a nutshell. It's possible the person is wrong about the rubber duck helping them, even if they think it did. We can't just give out credit willy nilly to everything that was involved in a person's recovery. Well, we can -- if we want to be wrong.

Some people recover despite the rubber ducks in their life. Maybe I recovered, but I would have recovered faster if I'd stopped eating the magical paint chips that happened to contain lead traces. To hear you tell it, the paint chips helped me, because look at the evidence: I was sick, I ate the paint chips, I got better. That's a closed case in your book.

ANYTHING that served as a crutch PSYCHOLOGICALLY helped the person to some extent when you're talking about recovery from an addiction, science isn't needed to deduce the relevance of something that is of subjective value to a person.

In your analogy, paint chips with lead traces are harmful, so I would never claim that a sick person was healed by paint chips just because they got better.
Don't assume what is "a close case in [my] book". I never said anything that was ridiculous like that and so contrary to not just science, but common sense.

Quote from: "Loffler"Ok ok, I'll Google, let's see what I come up with:

"The idea that if you're not an optimist, you're not going to do as well with this disease is just wrong, and it's a terrible thing to lay on people," Holland tells WebMD. "What this confirms is that if you're not optimistic by nature, it won't affect your cancer." (http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20040209/attitude-doesnt-affect-cancer-survival)

Of course, that's just one doctor and author. He could be wrong. And that's cancer, not addiction. Let's Google Alcoholics Anonymous's success rate:

The biggest problem with Alcoholics Anonymous is that it has a very low success rate for long term sobriety. Accurate statistics are hard to come by because of many factors, such as anonymity and dishonesty, but most studies reveal that it only has about a 2.5% success rate for over 5 years of sobriety. Some statistics have it as low as %1. (http://www.alternatives-for-alcoholism.com/alcoholics-anonymous.html)

Man, maybe I'm just a bad Googler.

The first link was about cancer, I already stated that it depends on what type of "sick" you're talking about. You didn't provide me with information I didn't already know.

I'm confused about the second link even more. I never said anything about AA, I've known for a long time that AA is proabably less successful than simply quitting on one's own. Have you assumed this whole time that I've been defending AA?

This entire argument started becasue of a declarative statement you made. when it was brought to your attention that it can't be said for everyone, you essentially said that you would need to see evidence that people use self-delusion to get through hard times. So, you could watch a person, first-hand, go through the process of "searching for god" and then use that search and faith to help them quit something and provide them with emotional support, but you won't beleive that their belief in God helped them if statistics show that it doesn't for most people. Not really surprising from someone who thought that 100 trees was more relevant than one falling tree in an already ridiculous example, like VanReal was supposed to slap his forehead and say "Oh, ONE HUNDRED trees! Now that's a different story!") Statistics will show that most people aren't allergic to peanuts, so does that mean peanuts will not cause an allergic reaction in some people? Statistically speaking, your chances of being killed in a plane crash are extremely low, does that mean no one, "at all", has ever died in a crash?

No, I know what you're defending. You're defending the fact that every so often, someone believes in a delusion and also gets better. And apparently if it happens just as often as it fails, that still counts.

Quote from: "Loffler"No, I now what you're defending. You're defending the fact that every so often, someone believes in a delusion and also gets better. And apparently if it happens just as often as it fails, that still counts.

Well of course, depending on the scenario, and they don't even have to "match" statistically.You don't believe that things that happen outside of the highest statistic actually happen? What's true for most must be true for everyone?

If just one person used religion to help quit something, as you've already admitted does happen, it wouldn't "count", at all? Did it happen "outside" of scientific reality?

You don't know what I'm defending becasue you don't even have a clear idea about what you're defending.

You make WAY TOO MANY assumptions, btw. When i said I grew up going to church, I mean I spent some time between childhood and the teen years, 8-15. Enough to say I "grew up" going to church, but still that's only a quarter of my life. It's kind of absurd to not acknoweldge the relvance in the connections I made between using faith to recover from addiction and all the other ways I see people use some form of delusion to get through life. Jumping to the conclusion that it was simply selection bias would only hold water if my argument had been something like "No, you don't understand, people who turn their lives over to God are transformed, I've seen it with my own eyes." Since I wasn't, at any point, trying to claim such a thing as some immutable truth, it should have been pretty obvious that I was providing relevant information to counter your "Belief in God does not help people with recovery. At all." statement. According to Loffler, something else, some mysterious thing that science has yet to discover, helped those people and many others kick their habits. It was purely coincidence, I suppose,  that they just happened to quit right after coming to church for help and guidance.

And in case you're still confused about why people argue with you:

"Believing in God does not help with recovery. At all."
"I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have made it except for their religious beliefs."

"C'mon if he prays and recovers then obviously prayer helped!" - No one ever said this, so no wonder you were amazed to have read such a statement!

"It's a major failure of logic to assume two things occurring at the same time have to be connected just because someone claims they are." - No one ever said such a thing. it's a major failure of logic to think that the things people do or beleive to help them overcome addiciton are just "things that are happening by coincidence".

No one ever tried to make any fantastical claims about optimism and its relation to health, or suggested that arbitrary events that occur during withdrawal must be related to success.

Thought I'd throw this in. There's evidence that proves there's nothing about church-going or religion specifically that helps people become adjusted and happy; it's actually the sense of community, and this can be found anywhere, not necessarily through religion. Here's the citation and my annotation.

QuoteGood, M. & Willoughby, T.  (2006.)  The Role of Spirituality Versus Religiosity in Adolescent Psychosocial Adjustment.  Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(1), 41-55.

Canadian researchers from Ontario examine the effects religiosity and spirituality have on psychosocial adjustment, specifically using four combinations of the criteria. Looking at religious and spiritual, religious but not spiritual, spiritual but not religious and neither religious nor spiritual adolescents, they found that there were striking differences between the groups. Non-believing adolescents had better parental relationships, but the two church-going groups were better adjusted psychosocially, belief in God notwithstanding. They hypothesize a number of reasons for why this may be, one of which being that high school students are simply busied by other aspects of life, religiousness or God becoming lesser priorities. The authors call for additional research to be done in the area of non-traditional spirituality and religiosity, an appropriate request in an age of increasing pluralism. As a secondary research discovery, it appears that church attendance can be replaced with any community involvement without diminishing psychosocial adjustment or happiness with home life.

Why not just believe in the "higher power" of community? In my experience (both ways) it's friends & family that help you get through bad times.

Kyu

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"It was purely coincidence, I suppose,  that they just happened to quit right after coming to church for help and guidance.

Yes, it was coincidence. And confirmation bias. 10 people get better on their own, 10 people show up at church to get better, of which 5 stop showing up, and 5 claim to have gotten better regardless of whether they relapse later or not.

And what do those people at the church see? Why, religion helping recovery of course!

QuoteAnd in case you're still confused about why people argue with you:

"Believing in God does not help with recovery. At all."
"I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have made it except for their religious beliefs."

If you don't see how those go together, no wonder you're frustrated. If religion helps 5 people and hurts 5 people, both my first and second statements are true. The second is true because one person was helped. The first statement is true because you could remove religion from the Earth and the net recovery of humanity will not have changed, thus "belief in God does not help recovery at all."

Understand now?

Quote"It's a major failure of logic to assume two things occurring at the same time have to be connected just because someone claims they are." - No one ever said such a thing. it's a major failure of logic to think that the things people do or beleive to help them overcome addiciton are just "things that are happening by coincidence".

If you can establish the connection, sure.

QuoteNo one ever tried to make any fantastical claims about optimism and its relation to health, or suggested that arbitrary events that occur during withdrawal must be related to success.

This entire thread is about arbitrary events related to success that people's delusional brains conflate to be connected.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"It was purely coincidence, I suppose,  that they just happened to quit right after coming to church for help and guidance.

Yes, it was coincidence. And confirmation bias. 10 people get better on their own, 10 people show up at church to get better, of which 5 stop showing up, and 5 claim to have gotten better regardless of whether they relapse later or not.

And what do those people at the church see? Why, religion helping recovery of course!

QuoteAnd in case you're still confused about why people argue with you:

"Believing in God does not help with recovery. At all."
"I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have made it except for their religious beliefs."

If you don't see how those go together, no wonder you're frustrated. If religion helps 5 people and hurts 5 people, both my first and second statements are true. The second is true because one person was helped. The first statement is true because you could remove religion from the Earth and the net recovery of humanity will not have changed, thus "belief in God does not help recovery at all."

Understand now?

Quote"It's a major failure of logic to assume two things occurring at the same time have to be connected just because someone claims they are." - No one ever said such a thing. it's a major failure of logic to think that the things people do or beleive to help them overcome addiciton are just "things that are happening by coincidence".

If you can establish the connection, sure.

QuoteNo one ever tried to make any fantastical claims about optimism and its relation to health, or suggested that arbitrary events that occur during withdrawal must be related to success.

This entire thread is about arbitrary events related to success that people's delusional brains conflate to be connected.

1)How is it coincidence if the people "show up at church to get better"? Do you see the problem with the way you argue?  Also, anyone can relapse regardless of their recovery method, so if that's part of your criteria then why don't you just say that you don't believe anything can help a person recover?

2)Your statements would have gone together if you had been a little more specific and avoided making declarative statements. At no point did I say anything about religion being better than other methods, nor was I making any claims about net value to humanity. My very first argument in this thread was CLEARLY about not making a declarative statement that isn't true for everyone. Somehow you've twisted it into an argument that I never tried to make in the first place, hence why I claim that you don't even know what you're defending.

You can't admit that there are people who would have not have made it if not for religion AND claim that believing in God does not help with recovery AT ALL.

3)Exercise and psychological distractions are NOT arbitrary. You equated these things to falling trees and paint chips. Exercise has a verifiable impact on endorphin levels and circulation of seratonin and dopamine, and this incredibly beneficial for a person withrawing from drugs or alcohol. Exercise also speeds up metabolization of toxins in the system. Putting something like exercise on the same level as a falling tree is madness.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Why not just believe in the "higher power" of community? In my experience (both ways) it's friends & family that help you get through bad times.

Kyu

Watch out Kyu - Loffler is going to attack that because you said that friends and family can help and you didn't provide any statistical data or a link to that!  

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Why not just believe in the "higher power" of community? In my experience (both ways) it's friends & family that help you get through bad times.

Kyu

Watch out Kyu - Loffler is going to attack that because you said that friends and family can help and you didn't provide any statistical data or a link to that!   :hail:

I'm sorry I went to be early last night but I was plum worn out.

Loffler - you are arguing against what we have posted here because you are not paying attention or listening (reading).  No one said that there was a correlation between religion and recovery.

What we are talking about is how everyone uses different toolsto get through events and that what works for one does not work for another.  We also are not saying that the person is using that one tool and doing nothing else during that period of time.  I think Miss Anthrope was very clear about that when posting on DISTRACTIONS.

When my uncle had a heart bypass years ago he made model war airplanes.  He's got tons of them.  He made them to keep bsy and get out of bed as he was instructed to do by his physician.  Were the airplanes magical and they zapped him back into shape? Of course not.  But they were his constructive tool of something to do, provided him goals, and kept him busy while he wasn't extremely mobile.  They were a toolhe used during his recovery.  When I broke my feet in 2003 I didn't make model ariplanes, I taught myself to cross-stitch.  It kept my mind busy, kept me from getting bored, and kept me off of my feet during their recovery.  

There does not need to be scientific or statistical data to determine that the tools a person uses to get them through a recovery period aided in that recovery.  It didn't create or causethe recovery, it assisted in the person's recovery, it was not a stand alone input.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Why not just believe in the "higher power" of community? In my experience (both ways) it's friends & family that help you get through bad times.

Kyu

Watch out Kyu - Loffler is going to attack that because you said that friends and family can help and you didn't provide any statistical data or a link to that!   :hail:

I don't attack anything. Why am I being made fun of for advocating skepticism? Am I at Sunday School?

Quote from: "Loffler"I don't attack anything. Why am I being made fun of for advocating skepticism? Am I at Sunday School?

Definitely not Sunday School because we are all awake and I haven't been smacked with a ruler yet.

And you weren't attacking anyone's statements in this thread? Hmmmmm, you compared two of us to Christians, you came back with arguments that had nothing to do with anything we said, you renamed ihatemike, instead of responded to legitimate information we posted you simplified our posts to the point of portraying us as complete idoits that have no common sense.  Skepticism?

Quote from: "VanReal"I'm sorry I went to be early last night but I was plum worn out.

Loffler - you are arguing against what we have posted here because you are not paying attention or listening (reading).  No one said that there was a correlation between religion and recovery.

What we are talking about is how everyone uses different toolsto get through events and that what works for one does not work for another.  We also are not saying that the person is using that one tool and doing nothing else during that period of time.  I think Miss Anthrope was very clear about that when posting on DISTRACTIONS.

When my uncle had a heart bypass years ago he made model war airplanes.  He's got tons of them.  He made them to keep bsy and get out of bed as he was instructed to do by his physician.  Were the airplanes magical and they zapped him back into shape? Of course not.  But they were his constructive tool of something to do, provided him goals, and kept him busy while he wasn't extremely mobile.  They were a toolhe used during his recovery.  When I broke my feet in 2003 I didn't make model ariplanes, I taught myself to cross-stitch.  It kept my mind busy, kept me from getting bored, and kept me off of my feet during their recovery.  

There does not need to be scientific or statistical data to determine that the tools a person uses to get them through a recovery period aided in that recovery.  It didn't create or causethe recovery, it assisted in the person's recovery, it was not a stand alone input.

Exactly. Loffler has decided that the things we say are equivalent to "If you're happy all the time you'll never,ever get sick and the power of belief can make anything happen!" Loffler has a habit of fabricating meaning from others' words which are non-existant and not related to the arguments at hand. Like the links he provided which were not relevant in the context of what I was arguing.

Quote from: "Loffler"Allow me to rephrase: say, is there any science behind the old assumption that superstition helps people recover? Or should I just play along and pretend it's a foregone conclusion?

No one ever said that superstition helps people recover. Not once.

Quote from: "Loffler"I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have made it except for their religious beliefs. I'm equally sure there are people who were made worse by their religious beliefs. I'd like to see some evidence that the former outnumber the latter.

Not only was the first part of this sentence an argument AGAINST his former claims, he made clear that he was arguing about statistics, as if one of us had made any kind of claim about beleif in God being more effective in recovery. What I find especially interesting is that he is indirectly conceding that he doesn't know if one outnumbers the other, yet still stands by his "at all" statement as if it is something which cannot be argued against. He also said "People used to say optimism helped the sick, that turned to be feel-good hogwash." Even putting aside the vagueness of the word "sick", he stated this as if science has completely put any connection between optimism and health into the realm of fantasy. Then he later claimed to be taking an agnostic POV about the issue! needless to say, I was unable to find any information to support his hard assertion. Oh, I found plenty of information about too much optimism being potentially harmful and studies which have proven that optimism isn't some miracle cure-all (not that I needed proof for that, anyway), but nothing to support his belief that optimism never helps the "sick".

As you say, VanReal, Loffler either does not carefully read what other people write or has an impairment when it comes to understanding what people are saying. He did the same thing on my Joker thread, assuming that my desire to include the make the character the subject of my musings was a proclamation that the Joker introduced new philosophies to the world and cinema, and also expressing a desire for proof that people I spoke with (despite the fact I was clearly referring to forums I viewed) were essentially villain worshippers. He used the phrase "in my world", implying that he did not believe what I said simply becasue the people he knows did not idolize the Joker (uh, selection bias?). All the evidence points to column A and B: Loffler does not carefully read what people write and he does not understand.

And no Loffler, you are not being made fun of for advocating skepticism. I don't think anyone on this thread would beleive if someone said "Today I stopped drinking and then I saw on the news that a puppy with two heads was born. The birth of the two headed puppy must have made me stop drinking!" What we're NOT skeptical about is the connection between exercise and psychological crutches aiding in recovery. You put words in our mouths about prayer being effective at healing and you argue against perspectives that you project on other people (again, when did anyone make claims about net value to humanity, we were talking FROM THE OUTSET about blanket statemetns not applying to everybody; seriously, go back read and everything from your "at all" statement up until now). We're very skeptical people, hence why we argue against your blanket statements.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"1)How is it coincidence if the people "show up at church to get better"? Do you see the problem with the way you argue?  Also, anyone can relapse regardless of their recovery method, so if that's part of your criteria then why don't you just say that you don't believe anything can help a person recover?

Do I need to pull out the puppets? I feel like I'm having to go back further and further to more fundamental logical principles to explain this to you.

If 10% of people who go to church get better, and 10% of people who don't go to church get better, are you really going to tell me that churches help people get better? Please tell me that you understand the simple concept of controls and variable.

Hell, imagine it's a science project. I have bread mold on white bread, multi-grain, and whole wheat. All three have the same amount of mold after a month. Do we conclude no difference in mold growth on the bread? Not on this thread, folks! On this thread they were all different, and the same amount of mold was just a coincidence!

Quote2)Your statements would have gone together if you had been a little more specific and avoided making declarative statements. At no point did I say anything about religion being better than other methods,

Or no method at all.

Quotenor was I making any claims about net value to humanity. My very first argument in this thread was CLEARLY about not making a declarative statement that isn't true for everyone. Somehow you've twisted it into an argument that I never tried to make in the first place, hence why I claim that you don't even know what you're defending.

You can't admit that there are people who would have not have made it if not for religion AND claim that believing in God does not help with recovery AT ALL.

If just as many people were hurt has helped, believing in God did not help at all. Maybe that's the source of our disagreement.

Quote3)Exercise and psychological distractions are NOT arbitrary. You equated these things to falling trees and paint chips.Exercise has a verifiable impact on endorphin levels and circulation of seratonin and dopamine, and this incredibly beneficial for a person withrawing from drugs or alcohol.

Yes, and it is precisely that verifiable impact, published by science and circulated in the media, which proves that they have an impact. ONLY THEN. That is NOT the point VanReal was making, which was that if someone does something and they get better, that something made them get better. VanReal was presenting this as an obvious tautology, and it was far from that.

And before anybody comes running back with proof no one used the word tautology till now, spare me. I know it sounds crazy, but sometimes words have meanings beyond just that one word itself. So sometimes people are saying more than they mean to say. Imagine that.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"I don't attack anything. Why am I being made fun of for advocating skepticism? Am I at Sunday School?

Definitely not Sunday School because we are all awake and I haven't been smacked with a ruler yet.

And you weren't attacking anyone's statements in this thread? Hmmmmm, you compared two of us to Christians, you came back with arguments that had nothing to do with anything we said, you renamed ihatemike, instead of responded to legitimate information we posted you simplified our posts to the point of portraying us as complete idoits that have no common sense.  Skepticism?

I'm sorry. I didn't know yall were taking that so personally. I wasn't trying to imply ihatemike doesn't read at all, I was trying to find a funnier way of saying he's not reading my posts carefully. And I compared him to a Christian because I really am more accustomed to seeing that line of reasoning from people of faith -- and by the very nature of the difference in faith reasoning versus secular reasoning. I responded to non-link posts with link posts, so I'm not sure how I'm the simplifier and you guys are supplying the "information posts."

I'm not sure what to make of this, as I'm usually the guy telling others not to be so mean, and sorry if I came off as attacking but... I mean this in the most delicate possible way, but would it be at all possible to maybe... lighten up?

K, blank slate: What do either of you believe is the relationship between recovery and:
faith or religion or church or superstition or horoscopes or exercise or optimism or teddy bears or trees falling in the yard?

Answer whichever ones you wish, and definitely do not leap at the assumption that I'm implying they're all the same, they're not. I just want to cast as wide a net possible to allow for the most expressive answer.


And a footnote that apparently also should have been on my first post on this thread: there will be a followup question.

Quote from: "Loffler"Do I need to pull out the puppets? I feel like I'm having to go back further and further to more fundamental logical principles to explain this to you.

If 10% of people who go to church get better, and 10% of people who don't go to church get better, are you really going to tell me that churches help people get better? Please tell me that you understand the simple concept of controls and variable.

The 10% that go to church and used their religious beliefs to aid them in recovery got better and the 10% that don't go to church and used whatever aids they chose got better.  Both groups got better using different tools.  

Quote from: "Loffler"Hell, imagine it's a science project. I have bread mold on white bread, multi-grain, and whole wheat. All three have the same amount of mold after a month. Do we conclude no difference in mold growth on the bread? Not on this thread, folks! On this thread they were all different, and the same amount of mold was just a coincidence!

Actually this kind of proves our point, they are all different, made of differing ingredients yet they all grew mold.  Hmmm.
It was your argument that the selected inputs were coincidence, not ours.

Quote from: "Loffler"I'm sorry. I didn't know yall were taking that so personally. I wasn't trying to imply ihatemike doesn't read at all, I was trying to find a funnier way of saying he's not reading my posts carefully. And I compared him to a Christian because I really am more accustomed to seeing that line of reasoning from people of faith -- and by design. I responded to non-link posts with link posts, so I'm not sure how I'm the simplifier and you guys are supplying the "information posts."

I'm not sure what to make of this, as I'm usually the guy telling others not to be so mean, and sorry if I came off as attacking but... I mean this in the most delicate possible way, but would it be at all possible to maybe... lighten up?

I'm all for lightening up, a good debate is a good debate.  Please know that when you say things like "Do I need to pll out the puppets" and "can you not understand simple" blah, blah that is not actally constructive debate tactic and tends to put people on the defensive.  Hell you might as well sayyou are going to pause for a while to allow us to drool in our cups.

I'm going to put on my comfy slippers and try to start fresh.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"Do I need to pull out the puppets? I feel like I'm having to go back further and further to more fundamental logical principles to explain this to you.

If 10% of people who go to church get better, and 10% of people who don't go to church get better, are you really going to tell me that churches help people get better? Please tell me that you understand the simple concept of controls and variable.

The 10% that go to church and used their religious beliefs to aid them in recovery got better and the 10% that don't go to church and used whatever aids they chose got better.  Both groups got better using different tools.  

Or they both just got better and the stuff they thought helped them didn't.

I think we're using two different definitions of "helped." Are you using it to mean anything someone does to pass the time while they recover? I feel like you are.

Quote

Quote from: "Loffler"Hell, imagine it's a science project. I have bread mold on white bread, multi-grain, and whole wheat. All three have the same amount of mold after a month. Do we conclude no difference in mold growth on the bread? Not on this thread, folks! On this thread they were all different, and the same amount of mold was just a coincidence!

Actually this kind of proves our point, they are all different, made of differing ingredients yet they all grew mold.  Hmmm.
It was your argument that the selected inputs were coincidence, not ours.

...

Wow. Just... wow.

It's most likely the ingredients the breads have in common that yielded the identical mold growths. Identical growths due to grain husks on one bread and refined flour on another bread would be a pretty amazing coincidence, and one that science wouldn't catch until they conducted a more thorough experiment. If the kid put your answer as their conclusion on the science project, a good teacher would make them rewrite it because the conclusion would be wrong, or at least hugely incomplete.

Quote from: "Loffler"Do I need to pull out the puppets? I feel like I'm having to go back further and further to more fundamental logical principles to explain this to you.

If 10% of people who go to church get better, and 10% of people who don't go to church get better, are you really going to tell me that churches help people get better? Please tell me that you understand the simple concept of controls and variable.

Hell, imagine it's a science project. I have bread mold on white bread, multi-grain, and whole wheat. All three have the same amount of mold after a month. Do we conclude no difference in mold growth on the bread? Not on this thread, folks! On this thread they were all different, and the same amount of mold was just a coincidence!

Yes, I'm quite familiar with concept of controls and variables. And no, I would never say "Churches help people get better" as if churches are needed or make all people better. But if 10% of people who go to church specifically to help themselves overcome an addiction succeed, then it's perfectly rational to say "Church helped them get better.", "Church helps some people get better" (as you've already conceded). If the other 10% percent used some prescription pharmecuedicals, like methadone, to overcome addiction, we can say the same things about that.

Do you understand that this was not a statistics based argument at ANY point?

It seems like you take the stance that everything that happens is a coincidence and the connections we make are ALL just within our minds. Now, at a fundamental level I would agree with that, at least to some degree, but from that perspective there's no point in arguing about anything. Since many of us come here to engage in semi-relaxed argumentation, it doesn't make any sense for you to try to kill any arguments against your hard assertions.

Quote from: "Loffler"If just as many people were hurt has helped, believing in God did not help at all. Maybe that's the source of our disagreement.

I VERY CLEARLY FROM THE OUTSET OF THIS ARGUMENT IMPLIED THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE HELPED BY THEIR BELIEF IN GOD.
You're just now realizing that this was not about humanity in general or statistics, despite the numerous times I've tried to make this distinction?

Why didn't you just respond from the beginning with something like "I meant that believing in God does not help people, as a whole, at all."
I'd imagine because you like to play games with people. It probably makes you feel clever and creative.

Quote from: "Loffler"Yes, and it is precisely that verifiable impact, published by science and circulated in the media, which proves that they have an impact. ONLY THEN. That is NOT the point VanReal was making, which was that if someone does something and they get better, that something made them get better. VanReal was presenting this as an obvious tautology, and it was far from that.

No, that was NOT the point VanReal was making. VanReal's point was that science is not needed to prove that the things people do TO HELP THEM RECOVER
actually helped them. VanReal did not say ANYTHING that was irrational, i challenge you to find one example VanReal gave that a scientist would say "No, that's pure fantasy."

Quote from: "Loffler"I think we're using two different definitions of "helped." Are you using it to mean anything someone does to pass the time while they recover? I feel like you are.

No, once again recovery is a process of many different events and activities occuring.  Recovery is not occurring in a vacuum where you toss the person in with one stimuli and see if it works.  "Help" again, as I am using it is one of the many tools used over the recovery period that assisted the person in obtaining their goal.  

Quote from: "Loffler"Wow. Just... wow.

It's most likely the ingredients the breads have in common that yielded the identical mold growths. Identical growths due to grain husks on one bread and refined flour on another bread would be a pretty amazing coincidence, and one that science wouldn't catch until they conducted a more thorough experiment. If the kid put your answer as their conclusion on the science project, a good teacher would make them rewrite it because the conclusion would be wrong, or at least hugely incomplete.

There you go again, another helping of condescending attitude anyone?

You never said anything about identical mold growth in the original example/comment, nor did I in my response.  My answer was 100% correct, "they were all different, they all grew mold".  You are the one implying coincidence.  It was your example, are you forgetting that what you think inside of your head does not flow through my laptop?  

Again you are talking about scientific measurements of some sort when there is no such ability when talking about addiction or any other habit or behavior correction.

Here's a link, since you seem to need one so much: http://www2.pmusa.com/en/quitassist/successful/index.asp

Those people all recovered from smoking addiction using different tools, some sucked on hard candy, some chewed gum, some drank water, some did it with their spouse, some began to exercise or take walks, and so on.  Hmmm, I guess those activites had nothing to do with their recovery because no scientist documented this.  They are probably really still secretly smoking because there is no way these tools actually had any affect on their recovery since no scientist followed them around documenting the experience and drafting statisics on their affects.

Quote from: "Loffler"That is NOT the point VanReal was making, which was that if someone does something and they get better, that something made them get better. VanReal was presenting this as an obvious tautology, and it was far from that.

Oh no, I did not see this part until Miss Anthrope responded to this.  I even bolded this word in my last post before the falling tree incident.  Since it obviously was invisible in all of my previous posts that you skimmed I specifically said these are TOOLS used as a part or aid to recovery.  Now I know you aren't reading.

Quote from: "Loffler"I responded to non-link posts with link posts, so I'm not sure how I'm the simplifier and you guys are supplying the "information posts."

I'm not sure what to make of this, as I'm usually the guy telling others not to be so mean, and sorry if I came off as attacking but... I mean this in the most delicate possible way, but would it be at all possible to maybe... lighten up?

You're links, as I've already pointed out a few times, were about optimism not helping cancer and statistics about AA. They were IRRELEVANT within the context of what was being argued. I had already pointed out that optimism is not a cure-all, and I never once argued about AA AT ALL. the things I was saying about optimism being a contributor to good health, exercise, etc were not breakthrough or hard to find things; ANYONE who stays even remtoely informed and up to date about science knows about these things. Hence why I don't understand why I have to link to anyhting if you're really a "man of science" as you claim.
Nothing I said was along the lines of some weird fringe science.

Sure, i'd lighten up, I'm not really "angry" anyway, but you seem like the type of person who would just try to take advantage of others' while their guards are down. You're sarcastic when people can't infer what you're thinking ("No, genius..." - As if it was irrational for me to think you were questioning my objectivity becasue I went to church based on your vague reply. In you rmind, I should have INSTANTLY known you were thinking about selection bias). Also, you NEVER respond when someone wants an explanation for your rudeness, like on my Joker thread. In short, you place yourslef so high above everyone else that you refuse to afford them the same courtesises they would probably offer you, so why should anyone lighten up?

Quote from: "VanReal"these are TOOLS used as a part or aid to recovery.

I did not directly address this because it is an irrelevant distinction. It's weird that you think it is. Either they have an effect or they don't. Tool is just another way of saying partial cause.

If 10 people have 10 different coping mechanisms, and some people have no coping mechanisms, and recovery success rates and speeds of success are all the same for all the people involved, the most obvious explanation is that the coping mechanisms were not tools and did not even partially aid recovery.

Again, you guys have no idea what I'm arguing,  and possibly what this entire thread is about.

QuoteVanReal's point was that science is not needed to prove that the things people do TO HELP THEM RECOVER

Then what is needed to prove which things help people recover?

"All three have the same amount of mold after a month."

I said it right there. Same amount of mold.

Quote from: "Loffler"

QuoteVanReal's point was that science is not needed to prove that the things people do TO HELP THEM RECOVER

Then what is needed to prove which things help people recover?

In what capacity? ALL people, MOST people, SOME people? Some people respond to certain drugs, and some people don't (and I'm not just talking about drugs that aid in recovery from addiction)

If you want to prove that a certain drug helps people recover from addcition, of course it's going to have to pass clinical trials and rigorous scientific studies (well, ideally, personally I don't hold the pahreceudical industry in very high regards when it comes to certain standards)

If someone plays videogames SPECIFICALLY to help keep theri mind occupied while getting off of drugs or alcohol, science does not need to figure out a link between videogames and recovery for that person. YOU are the only one who is arguing from a "what is useful for the majority" perspective. How many times do I have to point this out? PLEASE read what people write.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "VanReal"these are TOOLS used as a part or aid to recovery.

I did not directly address this because it is an irrelevant distinction. It's weird that you think it is. Either they have an effect or they don't. Tool is just another way of saying partial cause.

If 10 people have 10 different coping mechanisms, and some people have no coping mechanisms, and recovery success rates and speeds of success are all the same for all the people involved, the most obvious explanation is that the coping mechanisms were not tools and did not even partially aid recovery.

Again, you guys have no idea what I'm arguing,  and possibly what this entire thread is about.

We obviously don't because you make a plain and simple statement and then when it is remarked on you say "I didn't say that" or add in items that you never included originally.

You said "That is NOT the point VanReal was making, which was that if someone does something and they get better, that something made them get better."  That is NOT what I said, NOT!  Don't assume that you can make a bold statement about my point and that when I defend that as false to turn around and say that is not what you are saying and that we are obviously just to dim to understand.

We don't understand you because you are deceptive and you are not really debating but rather intending to provoke and frustrate.  Job well done.    I was joking when I said you had multiple personalities, but seriously you just don't make any sense and don't maintain any consistency in your posts.  Now suddenly you are talking about coping mechanisms?  And you are saying that some have some and some don't and they all recover?  Provide link please. I'll be satisfied with the link that shows how people recover from addictive behavior without any coping mechanism - I assume that is magic?

If (if, people) there is no discernible difference in the recovery rates and speeds of people who PARTIALLY attribute church to KINDA MAYBE SORTA helping them recover, and the recovery rates and speeds of people who did not go to church, that means there is no evidence that church helped ANYBODY AT ALL. And the skeptic position is to withhold belief that church can help, even a micro-smidgen, with recovery... until a study comes forth which demonstrates otherwise.

Here's why: if the guitar can help people recover, and exercise can help people recover, and church can help people recover, and it's "different for everybody," then these different aids to recovery should aid recovery at different rates of success and different recovery speeds. Furthermore, if it truly is "different for everyone," then many people would be using the wrong method for themselves and not realize it: someone who could recover with a little help from exercise or church but not playing guitar wouldn't experience the same recovery if they picked the wrong recovery method for themselves. If everyone has different "right" recovery aids, everyone also has different wrong recovery aids.


I feel the need to add twenty footnotes in order to cover all the bases of how you two could possibly misread one of my statements or dislike my word choice, but so far I've been incapable of guessing what you're going to misread next. So I wouldn't know where to begin. I'll just have to keep playing it by ear.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"Do you understand that this was not a statistics based argument at ANY point?

That would be peculiar, considering my original statement you took issue with was statistics-based.

QuoteI VERY CLEARLY FROM THE OUTSET OF THIS ARGUMENT IMPLIED THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE HELPED BY THEIR BELIEF IN GOD.

Then you should stop taking issue with my original statement. You can do so anytime you'd like.

QuoteIt seems like you take the stance that everything that happens is a coincidence and the connections we make are ALL just within our minds.

No, demonstrable evidence is not in our minds. For example, the evidence curiosityandthecat provided about community, or your pending evidence linking religion and recovery (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=33773#p33773). Those would not be within our minds.

One guy getting better who also happened to believe in God and believe God helped him, until it's studied, that connection exists in our heads.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"Do you understand that this was not a statistics based argument at ANY point?

That would be peculiar, considering my original statement you took issue with was statistics-based.

Something you didn't make clear until quite aways into the argument, and a perspective I was clearly not arguing from. So you really are just trying to screw with people.

QuoteYou're links, as I've already pointed out a few times, were about optimism not helping cancer and statistics about AA. They were IRRELEVANT within the context of what was being argued. I had already pointed out that optimism is not a cure-all, and I never once argued about AA AT ALL.

Does the phrase "Alcoholics Anonymous and belief in God" sound familiar to you? It should, it's the thread title. If you don't think my link about AA is relevant you're not participating in the thread anyway and it's your points that are irrelevant.

Quotethe things I was saying about optimism being a contributor to good health, exercise, etc were not breakthrough or hard to find things; ANYONE who stays even remtoely informed and up to date about science knows about these things.

Which is why I'm informed about that. Which is why I'm not arguing against that. It's weird that you think I am. Pay closer attention.

Quote from: "Loffler"Furthermore, if it truly is "different for everyone," then many people would be using the wrong method for themselves and not realize it: someone who could recover with a little help from exercise or church but not playing guitar wouldn't experience the same recovery if they picked the wrong recovery method for themselves. If everyone has different "right" recovery aids, everyone also has different wrong recovery aids.

Finally, something we can agree on.  That is correct.  Recovery doesn't work at the same speed or pace for everyone, and many people don't recover the first time.  They try several times and several different aids until something works for them, and some never do, and some get it right the first time.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"Sure, i'd lighten up, I'm not really "angry" anyway, but you seem like the type of person who would just try to take advantage of others' while their guards are down.

You strike me as the kind of person who piles on the paragraphs hoping one of them eventually makes sense.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"Finally, something we can agree on. That is correct. Recovery doesn't work at the same speed or pace for everyone, and many people don't recover the first time. They try several times and several different aids until something works for them, and some never do, and some get it right the first time.

And some aids people think are helping are not actually helping at all.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"Sure, i'd lighten up, I'm not really "angry" anyway, but you seem like the type of person who would just try to take advantage of others' while their guards are down.

You strike me as the kind of person who piles on the paragraphs hoping one of them eventually makes sense.

Hmm, that's because Miss Anthrope does not try to make us better develop our powers of telepathy in order to communicate effectively with a person who talks down to people throughout every post and then whines when someone calls him on it.

Your original statement had nothing to do with statistics, at least what was posted did not, can't speak for the voices in your head not making it onto computer screen.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"Finally, something we can agree on. That is correct. Recovery doesn't work at the same speed or pace for everyone, and many people don't recover the first time. They try several times and several different aids until something works for them, and some never do, and some get it right the first time.

And some aids people think are helping are not actually helping at all.

And that is determined by????  

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"Do you understand that this was not a statistics based argument at ANY point?

That would be peculiar, considering my original statement you took issue with was statistics-based.

Something you didn't make clear until quite aways into the argument, and a perspective I was clearly not arguing from. So you really are just trying to screw with people.

"Religion doesn't help recovery" is no different than the statement "There is no God." Both are heavy with hidden parentheticals, but both are also correct on their own.

The expanded version of the latter would be "[In accordance with the current inductive record of reality and the laws of physics and cosmology derived thereof]There [probably] is no God [meaning, at minimum, an intelligent source of the universe][yet]."

I'm sure there are plenty of Asperger types who can't resist typing out the long version every time. I'm not one of them. I like brevity. There is no God. And religion doesn't help [because it can't yet be demonstrated to improve odds and rate of recovery beyond random chance, according to the data of which I'm currently aware].

Quote from: "Loffler"

QuoteYou're links, as I've already pointed out a few times, were about optimism not helping cancer and statistics about AA. They were IRRELEVANT within the context of what was being argued. I had already pointed out that optimism is not a cure-all, and I never once argued about AA AT ALL.

Does the phrase "Alcoholics Anonymous and belief in God" sound familiar to you? It should, it's the thread title. If you don't think my link about AA is relevant you're not participating in the thread anyway and it's your points that are irrelevant.

Quotethe things I was saying about optimism being a contributor to good health, exercise, etc were not breakthrough or hard to find things; ANYONE who stays even remtoely informed and up to date about science knows about these things.

Which is why I'm informed about that. Which is why I'm not arguing against that. It's weird that you think I am. Pay closer attention.

Again, you're screwing around. You became engaged in an argument that deviated from the AA topic for the [past few pages, and you're just NOW starting to play the "I've been on topic" card. Please. Sure, your link WAS relevant to the theme of the thread, but you were linking in response to MY arguments, which had nothing to do with AA.

"Pay closer attention". You say this a lot. Yes, in the past few posts you've been admitting to the optimism/health benfits thing (wait so you know this, but optimsim doesn't help sick people???), but early on you needed links to such information.

Hence, I maintain that you are screwing around.

I'll be avoiding you from now on.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"Finally, something we can agree on. That is correct. Recovery doesn't work at the same speed or pace for everyone, and many people don't recover the first time. They try several times and several different aids until something works for them, and some never do, and some get it right the first time.

And some aids people think are helping are not actually helping at all.

And that is determined by????  

The similarity of a success rate to that of random chance.

Quote from: "Loffler"The similarity of a success rate to that of random chance.

I could appreciate, and possibly even buy into that argument if we were talking about diabetes and what works to control high blood sugar, but not when talking about addictive behavior, there is no measure for random chance in behavior modification.  Ever seen Clockwork Orange?

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"The similarity of a success rate to that of random chance.

I could appreciate, and possibly even buy into that argument if we were talking about diabetes and what works to control high blood sugar, but not when talking about addictive behavior, there is no measure for random chance in behavior modification.  Ever seen Clockwork Orange?

Yeah I don't get how it demonstrates that point.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"The similarity of a success rate to that of random chance.

I could appreciate, and possibly even buy into that argument if we were talking about diabetes and what works to control high blood sugar, but not when talking about addictive behavior, there is no measure for random chance in behavior modification.  Ever seen Clockwork Orange?

Yeah I don't get how it demonstrates that point.

Um, did you pay attention to the movie?  Even in a restrained and controlled environment behavior modification is not absolute, or measurable from outside, it all takes place within where your science and statistics can't go.

Ok that puts us in an even more agnostic position, doesn't it? That would mean we can't even honor the statistics if we DO find them. Where do we go from there?

Quote from: "Loffler"Ok that puts us in an even more agnostic position, doesn't it? That would mean we can't even honor the statistics if we DO find them. Where do we go from there?

That's a good question.  I guess we just hope that those in the psychiatric and behavioral science arenas keep working at us and come up with something that affects a more broad range of people.  Until then we repeat attempts and failure towards mental health and destructive behavior.  Subjective issues are always difficult to put in a box, that may be what makes them interesting.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "sathyan"Believing in god is all about  believing a power which we need in order to help succeed and to back us in failure and hence i too believe in god.
----
sathyan

Alcoholism Information (http://www.alcoholisminformation.org)

Believing in God does not help with recovery. At all.

I don't think we should presume to know what helps people through recovery or any trying time in their lives.  Each person gets through things in their own way.  Let's not pretend to know what works for everyone, we need to make sure we aren't saying the same thing to the religious that we don't want them saying to us.

I was going back reading through this thread to see when it started to go a bit off track from a discussion into a more argumentative phase. I also wanted to see if I was correct in thinking that the times I've been mentioned in this thread were actually based on posts in another thread. I got to the above string of posts and they got me thinking.

What if I substitute another word for "god" in the first post? Something like "family"? It would read like this:
"Believing in [family] is all about  believing a power which we need in order to help succeed and to back us in failure and hence i too believe in [family]."

Nothing wrong with that. Looks pretty good to me. But what would the response look like?
"Believing in [family] does not help with recovery. At all."

A little presumptuous? Completely without merit?  Definitely looks a little bit more harsh when family is put in there.

What's my point? I think some people saw that god could easily be substituted in that sentence with many other words, and although it was not in direct context to the thread (AA & belief in god), it would be a correct statement. Others cannot look past the fact that "god" is the word in that statement, and took offense to the statement because of that. Being an atheist, I have a hard time looking past god in that statement as well. I think belief in god is ridiculous, like others here. What I do not believe is that someone having a belief in a god, and the human support system that usually comes with that,  is always detrimental to that person as an individual. I think that some people who are atheist do believe that. I think they cannot look past the fact that they know there is no god, and because of that, any claims to someone's faith being a positive are taken as being completely false to these people, and are attacked.
I think the notion of god is ridiculous, but I don't feel that faith in a god, and religion are always a bad thing for individuals. Which is why I think the reply to both of the above posts was so appropriate and summarizes my own thoughts very well:

"I don't think we should presume to know what helps people through recovery or any trying time in their lives.  Each person gets through things in their own way.  Let's not pretend to know what works for everyone, we need to make sure we aren't saying the same thing to the religious that we don't want them saying to us."

That all being said, I would like religion to go the way of the dinosaurs. I simply have respect (at least outwardly) for other people's beliefs as long as they are not trying to force their beliefs upon me.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"I was going back reading through this thread to see when it started to go a bit off track from a discussion into a more argumentative phase. I also wanted to see if I was correct in thinking that the times I've been mentioned in this thread were actually based on posts in another thread. I got to the above string of posts and they got me thinking.

What if I substitute another word for "god" in the first post? Something like "family"? It would read like this:
"Believing in [family] is all about  believing a power which we need in order to help succeed and to back us in failure and hence i too believe in [family]."

Nothing wrong with that. Looks pretty good to me. But what would the response look like?
"Believing in [family] does not help with recovery. At all."

A little presumptuous? Completely without merit?  Definitely looks a little bit more harsh when family is put in there.

What's my point? I think some people saw that god could easily be substituted in that sentence with many other words, and although it was not in direct context to the thread (AA & belief in god), it would be a correct statement. Others cannot look past the fact that "god" is the word in that statement, and took offense to the statement because of that. Being an atheist, I have a hard time looking past god in that statement as well. I think belief in god is ridiculous, like others here. What I do not believe is that someone having a belief in a god, and the human support system that usually comes with that,  is always detrimental to that person as an individual. I think that some people who are atheist do believe that. I think they cannot look past the fact that they know there is no god, and because of that, any claims to someone's faith being a positive are taken as being completely false to these people, and are attacked.
I think the notion of god is ridiculous, but I don't feel that faith in a god, and religion are always a bad thing for individuals. Which is why I think the reply to both of the above posts was so appropriate and summarizes my own thoughts very well:

"I don't think we should presume to know what helps people through recovery or any trying time in their lives.  Each person gets through things in their own way.  Let's not pretend to know what works for everyone, we need to make sure we aren't saying the same thing to the religious that we don't want them saying to us."

That all being said, I would like religion to go the way of the dinosaurs. I simply have respect (at least outwardly) for other people's beliefs as long as they are not trying to force their beliefs upon me.

You picked the exact spot of derailment.  Yes, what we did through post after post was replace God with other words, it didn't reach the desired outcome and got a little   .  It's all over now.  We are back to being nice.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"What if I substitute another word for "god" in the first post?

Then you will be able to construct an endless variety of sentences, some of which are true and some of which are false depending on what word you decide to substitute.

I've been through chemical dependency recovery programs. I've looked into AA. It is a religious organization. In fact, in my mind it actually is a religion in its own right. They have belief in a higher power, prayer, indoctrination, ritual, dogma, etc. Look into their 12 step program if you're interested, it's all on the web.

There was a court case in New York some years ago where the court described the AA doctrinal writings as "unequivocally religious". That's good ammunition if you want to ensure you get secular treatment in a chemical dependency program.

For atheists who need help with their alcohol abuse or chemical dependency, there are secular alternatives to AA. You can get counseling from a psychotherapist who specializes in chemical dependency. Psychiatrists can prescribe drugs that can help you get off the sauce (in fact it's very important to do that, alcohol is one of the few drugs where the withdrawal can kill you). There are also secular group sessions. The important thing is to permanently stop drinking. The hardest part is making a commitment to do that and the best way to go about that while avoiding religious nonsense is IMHO to see a therapist once every couple of weeks or so. The therapists will generally recommend AA. Just tell them you think AA is "unequivocally religious" and that you want secular treatment. They can't say no to that.

Quote from: "AlP"For atheists who need help with their alcohol abuse or chemical dependency, there are secular alternatives to AA.

Here's one I found: http://secularsobriety.org/