Actually many studies have shown that AA is less effective than simply trying to quit on your own. This might be because part of their teachings are that you're powerless over your alcoholism, which gives people an excuse to relapse.
Should atheism be recognised?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Which studies are these? I ask because they do not appear to be listed here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous
Bells
"I have been very dedicated to atheism for a long time, and what I find most disturbing is how people mention "there is no god", "God probably doesn't exist" etc etc. I find this very disruptive to my daily prayer."
.... comes across as either sarcasm or absurdity, precisely because it violates issues of category.
In a pedagogical sense, this is understood through the social application of literacy. (For instance the quote I gave above is not rendered incoherent by misapplied syntax or grammar ..... but rather by misapplied social categories ... IOW what it means to be an atheist/theist, etc )
but if you say this is a picture of your pet cat ....
..... perhaps we might think you are transferring the domestic qualities of a cat onto your work machinery ("I luv my bulldozer") but if you proceed to further violate the categorical understanding of the nature of cat, you quickly become incomprehensible.
But without you participating in social discourse in a meaningful way, with adherence to principles of category, there is no way for anyone to determine the existence of your opinion.
In fact, unless you had functional language based on category, even your thinking ability would be severely diminished.
If I violate the category definitions, I could participate, but my opinion would be totally meaningless. For instance this phrase ....
"I have been very dedicated to atheism for a long time, and what I find most disturbing is how people mention "there is no god", "God probably doesn't exist" etc etc. I find this very disruptive to my daily prayer."
.... comes across as either sarcasm or absurdity, precisely because it violates issues of category.
Through agreement on categories through social context.
In a pedagogical sense, this is understood through the social application of literacy. (For instance the quote I gave above is not rendered incoherent by misapplied syntax or grammar ..... but rather by misapplied social categories ... IOW what it means to be an atheist/theist, etc )
sure
but if you say this is a picture of your pet cat ....
..... perhaps we might think you are transferring the domestic qualities of a cat onto your work machinery ("I luv my bulldozer") but if you proceed to further violate the categorical understanding of the nature of cat, you quickly become incomprehensible.
To say that it is possible to participate in discussion without agreements about social category is impossible. In one sense, you could say belief forms the basis of social category - IOW you believe that a bulldozer is not in fact a feline (this may be based on further beliefs, namely that your senses indicate reality in an accurate fashion, etc etc)
thats fine
But without you participating in social discourse in a meaningful way, with adherence to principles of category, there is no way for anyone to determine the existence of your opinion.
In fact, unless you had functional language based on category, even your thinking ability would be severely diminished.
Iceaura
Or do you think it is no more notable than the finding that a small but significant percentage of bulldozer driver's, scientists, dental assistants, etc are also atheistic?
even if this is true, does that strike you as a curiosity because it violates the social category of "clergymen"?
Or do you think it is no more notable than the finding that a small but significant percentage of bulldozer driver's, scientists, dental assistants, etc are also atheistic?
well you just mentioned it was highly hypothetical that atheists wouldn't participate in social discourse
:shrug:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I don't know whether atheists need to stand up and fight for their rights in society - but some of them surely do stand up and fight for their rights in society.
But society doesn't always 'do what is right without having to be reminded of what is right'.
If you do not state what you think, what you want etc. - how can you hope to be respected, heard?
Because society, other people should 'do what is right without having to be reminded of what is right'?
If you are silent, in time, you will probably cease to exist.
Let's not forget all this would happen because of your alcohol-related offense.
If you wouldn't have an alcohol issue, this whole ordeal of the court-ordered brand of AA treatment would not take place.
Your statement that I commented on was:
'Morality is subjective implies that it is not the case that man is the highest moral instance.'
If a man says that 'man is not the highest moral instance' - how valid is that?
Unless a moral instance higher than man is actually identified and referred to,
how then can we know that it is true 'man is not the highest moral instance' or that 'morality is subjective'?
In fact, if you declare just that 'man is not the highest moral instance' or that 'morality is subjective', without any identification of and reference to a higher moral instance,
then you are implying that you yourself are the highest moral instance.
I am addressing the issue at two levels, as you can see: 1. at the level of the claims themselves ('man is not the highest moral instance'), and 2. at the level of who makes those claims (how relevant or valid those claims are, given who makes them).
Last edited:
Who is making the statement 'natural humans have a built in tendency to develop moral codes of a certain pattern or kind'?
You or an instance higher than you?
If it is you, then you are indeed considering yourself the highest moral instance.
If it is 'men', then you are indeed considering man to be the highest moral instance.
Do you think you're making a point???
No, you've terribly misunderstood the logic and not at all replied to my argument showing why the conclusion was true.
If morality is subjective then there is no objective good or bad. That is the definition of subjective. Perhaps you use some sort of alien dictionary where 'subjective' means something else, but here we'll use the normal earth dictionary.
So if there is no objective good or bad then there is no "highest instance". Therefore man cannot be the "highest moral instance". Because no such thing exists.
I'll use another example and maybe you'll be able to follow this one...
1) Taste in art is subjective.
2) Therefore there is no single "greatest piece of art."
In this example 1 is completely equivalent to "morality is subjective." 2 is completely equivalent to "there is no single highest moral instance."
Do you get it now? This really isn't a philosophical argument. There's no chance you're right. This is just what the definition of 'subjective' is.
You may also have misunderstood the English connective "if...then..."
I never said morality was subjective. I said If morality is subjective then it is not the case that man is the highest moral instance. Your response is, in effect, not a response to anything I said. I never postulated that morality was subjective. I simply made a conditional to respond to someone else who insisted that "morality is subjective" implies "man is the highest moral instance" - which is blatantly false.
Unfortunately, atheists aren't allowed to have tax free institutions like theists, which makes the creation of such a program financially difficult.
Actually anyone is free to start a tax-free non-profit institution for something like treating alcoholism; there doesn't need to be anything religious about it. I'm sure secular addiction recovery programs already exist anyway. The problem, as has already been pointed out many times, appears when the government picks a religious group (like AA) and tells you that you have to either go to a religious service or go to jail.
Are you saying you're sorry for thinking that the newer studies were more relevant, or sorry for saying that you didn't see any studies showing that quitting on your own is more effective than AA on the linked page when in fact the very first study on the linked page showed exactly that?
If you like newer stuff, here is a 2006 study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16856072
Here is a page with many, many references for you to look though if you're really curious. Hopefully you will have better luck sorting through them than you initially had with the wikipedia page.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html
I read many studies with different results. I did not see a consensus on the method. Apparently several studies showed comparable results between different methods. I do not think one can make an ad hoc statement that its better to do it on your own than use a support group. The 16 year study, the longest one, showed greater compliance with the longest attendance. Which goes more to motivation than anything else. Perhaps the problem is one of identification.
I didn't make that statement, nor would I probably be qualified to. I said that studies have shown that quitting on your own can be more effective.
Sure, of course people who stay in the program longer will stay sober better. That's not necessarily relevant, since people with more desire to stay sober will likely also be more dedicated to sticking with the program, while people who are less dedicated will relaps and quite. It's like saying that patients who are in surgery for 3 hours are more likely to survive than patients who die after 1 hour. The question is whether or not going into surgery in the first place is a good idea.