Originally Posted by carve
If morals are based on religion, how did anyone arrive at that conclusion. The bible was used as justification for slavery right up to the end.
Funny you mention AA. They no longer publish their success rate because it tends to be equal or lower than the success rate of people who just make it their personal goal to quit. Without the peer-pressure and support from regular meetings, I'm sure the rate would be MUCH lower. I think AA is terrible in that the first step is to convince people they are powerless to control their disease and only God can help them. This is a great example of religion being for the weak.
I think it allows people a convenient excuse to drink again. Not their fault, right? In the end, it IS in their power and ONLY in their power to control their addiction. So, good example- thanks.
I need everyone not me who's on now to make one big post so I can address all items at once =)
You somewhat contradicted your own position. You indicate that AA has stopped publishing its success rates because it may not be statistically different from those who don't attend AA, but then go on to mention that it's the peer-pressure and regular meetings that prevent their rate from being lower. That would imply that without those meetings (i.e., those who simply make it a personal goal), those people would fail.
As for this being an example that religion is for the weak, do you believe that medicine is for the weak? If you broke your arm, would you make it your personal goal to set it yourself and heal on your own, or would you go to the doctor? Given that addiction is both mental and physical, the logical extension for alcoholics is that for the mental aspect, help may also be needed. Whether that help comes from a therapist or from a religious-based support group makes no difference.