Quote
kath

Quote
ughaibu
. Undemonstrable hypothetical entities "beyond ourselves" do not intercede in our drinking.
To say "I stopped drinking with the help of my belief in God" can be true, in the case of certain people with certain religious beliefs, but to say "I stopped drinking with the help of God" is not true.

Then you are getting into an atheism vs theism thang and trying to disprove a theist's belief that god acts in the world.

I don't think that ever convinces 'true believers' of any faith, they will just argue that from their personal experience they've seen god working in the world.

We sceptics can have our own views though :)

I am a skeptic. You can't assume by reading my posts that I am a 'true believer' of anything.

But I agree that success at Alcoholic's Anonymous requires the initial assumption by a newcomer that, "I need something outside of myself to help me stop drinking."

That can be God. That can be the group. That can be a sponsor. That can be an assumption with personal religious connotations. That can be a philosophical assumption. It can be a psychological assumption. Famously, that can be a doorknob.

I don't think you need to launch necessarily into an "atheism vs theism" argument at all unless you take the concept of God firstly to be a, say, Christian God. Which is not a requirement of membership to AA.

Barabara or ughaibu:

barabara wrote:

Quote
barabara
Court ordered referrals to 12 step programs have been found to be in violation of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

You have mentioned supreme court rulings against forced participation in AA. Why haven't these rulings been upheld, do you know?

Upsidedownnewspaper: A doorknob is something real and it's ability to stop people drinking can be tested, if doorknobs have a success rate greater than the control group, you have a viable therapeutic aid. If doorknobs are no more effective than broomsticks, or hypothetical entities, you have no case for an effect specifically caused by doorknobs, in other words, the effect is caused by the drinker.
If your insistence on this point is part of your stated position, on this thread, of denying that AA is a cult, perhaps you missed my post on page 7, AA is by definition and on it's own terms, a cult.

ughaibu:

As stated previously, AA is not a "cult" according to any cult experts.

You have stated your opinion that "AA is a cult."

The classic definition of cult formation by Lifton does not fit AA.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Note Lifton's three features needed for formation of a cult.

1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;

2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;

3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

AA does not match up with any of these three criteria.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Note the distinctions made by Singer regarding persuasion techniques.

AA would fit within indoctrination, but not thought reform.

I realize you disagree, but it seems meaningful to point out here why cult experts would not define AA as a "cult."

Rrmoderator: According to those three requirements there are no cults once their leaders have died, Jehovah's Witnesses are not a cult by those requirements, it is an incomplete definition. According to the Websters definitions posted by you and AA's own statement that alcoholism is a disease, AA is a cult, by definition, this is not a matter of my opinion, and in any case AA's status, as a cult or otherwise, and if a cult, as benign or malign, is not central to this thread. Disputation of the definitions belongs on Tracey's thread specifically discussing AA's cult status.

upside down:

Quote

You have mentioned supreme court rulings against forced participation in AA. Why haven't these rulings been upheld, do you know?

This question contains an stated assumption that the rulings have [b:d53c2d76cb]not[/b:d53c2d76cb] been upheld.

Do you have any evedence to suport this assumption, a link to individual court cases, for instance, or media coverage of statistics related to cour-ordering people to meetings?

ughaibu:

You made a potentially misleading statement and it needed to be responded to here.

Perhaps in the future you need to stay more focused per the thread topic.

No, I don't consider Jehovah's Witnesses a "cult." And per the definition they are not.

Most cults crumble and fall apart after a leader dies. Some continue under another leader. Some evolve into something else (e.g. a religion like Jehovah's Witnesses).

You have chosen to ignore the complete material posted at FAQ.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Here is what it says in context:

[b:9a890e9410]Defining a Cult [/b:9a890e9410]

Question: Isn't the word "cult" a pejorative label used to discriminate against new religious movements?

Answer: No. It is disingenuous to ignore the historical significance and modern day applications of the word cult. Today many controversial groups, that have been called "cults", are seeking to either eliminate the word, or create through fear of litigation a reluctance to use the term. Some cult apologists have literally said that "'cult' is a four letter word," and should be replaced by the politically correct title "new religious movement" (NRM). However, historically cults have always been with us and they continue to be a part of the world today.

Question: How is the word "cult" defined?

Webster's Dictionary defines a cult as:

"1. A formal religious veneration 2. A system of religious beliefs and rituals also its body of adherents; 3. A religion regarded as "unorthodox or spurious."; 4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator; 5. a: A great devotion to a person, idea, thing; esp.: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad, b: A usually small circle of persons united by devotion or allegiance to an artistic or intellectual movement or figure."

This definition obviously could include everything from Barbie collectors to old "Deadheads," "Trekkies" to diehard Elvis fans. American history might also include within such a definition the devoted followers of Mary Baker Eddy the founder of Christian Science, or the Mormons united through their devotion to Joseph Smith. Both these religious groups were once largely regarded as "unorthodox or spurious." However, the most important concern today is not simply who might be somewhat "cultic" in their devotion now or historically, but what groups might represent potential problems regarding personal or public safety. That is, groups that are potentially unsafe and/or destructive.

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who wrote the definitive book about thought reform (often called "brainwashing") also wrote a paper about cult formation. Lifton defined a cult as having the following three characteristics:

1. A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power.

2. A process [is in use] call[ed] coercive persuasion or thought reform.

3. Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

Question: Don't some groups once seen as "cults" often move more into the mainstream, becoming generally respected sects or religions?

Answer: Yes. There are certainly examples of groups that were once perhaps thought of as "cults" that have evolved into relatively mainstream sects or religions. Such examples as the Seventh Day Adventists once led by Ellen White, or the Mormons, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.

But it is also important to note that some groups, which may have once been labeled as "cults" continue to be controversial due to their unsafe or destructive practices. Two examples of groups that continue to be problematic and often destructive are the former Russellites, now known as "Jehovah's Witnesses," that once prohibited organ transplants and still expects its members to refuse blood transfusions, which has resulted in numerous deaths. And the Christian Scientists founded by Mary Baker Eddy who often reject medical treatment, again resulting in the loss of life. Some groups may say they have renounced unsafe or destructive practices, only to be exposed later as guilty of the same extremes and abuses.

If you don't like AA and feel it is a bad group or movement, that's one thing, but please don't attempt to place a false label on the group. It's really not useful for the purpose of meaningful discussion here.

AA doesn't meet the criteria for a cult, nor does it utilize thought reform per the definition of experts in the field.

A fair, objective and accurate statement might be; AA is an organization that has a belief system/philosophy, and it indoctrinates and expects its members to accept that belief system.

Subsequently, you might point out why you don't like AA or its beliefs.

That would then be your opinion about AA.

This has nothing to do with me liking AA or not, section 4 of Websters definition applies to AA, the rest of your article doesn't alter that fact.

On the question of staying focused, I am replying to other people's posts.

ughaibu:

You are choosing to ignore quite a bit.

Webster's Dictionary is a very broad multiple definition.

The definitive understanding of "cults" would be from someone like Lifton, which flows from years of experience and matches the definition generally accepted by cult experts.

A dictionary is not designed to offer an expert opinion about cults. It simply reflects an array of descriptions understandings of a word.