Why would gambling be a weakness peculiar to atheists, that makes no sense? I’ve never had a problem with gambling.
2 Likes
I’ll second that. My gambling behavior is recreational and never poses a problem. My cash is budgeted and I never spend more than what I go to the casino with. (I also win much of the time.) When I lose, or after I have played for 4 hours, I usually call it a night. (Ususally because If I still feel awake and the game is good, I might stay longer. The money issue does not change. If I get tabled, I go home.
2 Likes
My experience is similar. There is a racecourse nearby, and on the occasional day out I budget for each race, one to win and the other placed. I add entry fee, drink and food, and that’s what the day costs up front. Any winnings make the day cheaper than it otherwise would have been, I have on rare occasions had a free day out. I never try to gamble my way past losses, as that makes no sense. I occasionally play the lottery, and have never had a problem with any sort of gambling. I am baffled why atheism and gambling problems would be linked at all?
Once some friends wanted to visit a local casino, we were all pretty drunk, and it took the poor man at the roulette wheel 4 or 5 attempts to explain that the minimum bet on evens was £15, eventually I put £15 on red, more to save face than anything, it duly won and I walked away with £30, his face was a picture, and I didn’t place another bet all night. My friend was enraged by this point as he had lost heavily, so I bought a round of drinks to placate him. He is a theist as well, go figure.
1 Like
Hmmmmmmm It seems to me that theists have a gambling problem. You have to think you have something to risk for it to be a gamble. From what I’ve seen they’re the ones that always bring up Pascal’s Wager.
1 Like
I’ve been to a casino only once (Las Vegas), and there I spent around $10. When I had lost those to a small variety of machines, I was bored with the concept. Eating at the restaurants and looking at all the fake plastic decorations in horror was much more entertaining than attending games that are designed to separate you from your money.
1 Like
I’m not really interested in gambling, and the fact that most casinos allow smoking, keeps me away.
1 Like
Hello! I don’t believe in addiction if you love something that much you shouldn’t attach guilt or shame to it.
LOL…
Then you are an idiot. Physical addiction is a fact. You don’t get to not believe in it. People who take drugs or drink alcohol, do get addicted and there is no evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps you are trying to assert that you do not believe in the ‘disease model’ of addiction. I think the disease model was a step up from the ‘moral inadequacy’ model. The disease model has become scientific orthodoxy for the basic reason, it can now be treated medically. There is huge money in alcoholism and drug treatment, whether or not the disease model is correct.
My personal favorite, which eliminates the disease model completely: " In the opening article of this e-book “Addiction and Choice: Theory and New Data,” Heyman (1) examines new data on the ways that addicts recover, and argues that recovery from addiction is better predicted by a model in which addicts choose to use drugs, rather than one in which they are compelled to do so by a disease. After all, an addict gets up off his butt and chooses to go to an AA meeting. They opt to pick up the phone and call a sponsor. They make the choice to stop drinking or using, one day at a time.
“in “Addiction and the Brain-Disease Fallacy” directly challenge the disease model, drawing on historical and clinical data to argue that addicts respond to incentives and use drugs for reasons, and so addictive behavior must be understood as a choice.”
You clearly indicate this in your statement… “If you love something…” You basically say, ‘go ahead and do it, and do not attach guilt or shame to it.’ (I happen to agree.) Legalize all drugs and let the addicts kill themselves. What a great idea.
6 Likes
When it comes to addiction, whether physical addiction or the other kind, a very important factor here is the “feel-good hormones” (dunno if it’s behind a paywall - I don’t subscribe, but could read the article) produced by your body, like dopamine, which “signals the perceived motivational prominence (i.e., the desirability or aversiveness) of an outcome, which in turn propels the organism’s behavior toward or away from achieving that outcome” and endorphin, which is your body’s own painkiller.
Thus, doing the thing you’re addicted to releases these chemicals, and you feel good doing it. Your brain is being stimulated by doing the stuff that’s bad for you. And you do the things that are bad for you because your brain wants them. In other words, we’re talking about a positive feedback loop of brain chemistry here. In order to fight this kind of addiction, you need to break this cycle somehow, or perhaps divert the “dopamine high” feeling over to another more innocent and less destructive type of addiction(*). You can attempt to break the cycle using a disease model or a “grow a pair of balls”-approach - both might work - but a key component in both is that the addiction affects you negatively to such a degree that you feel a very high motivation to get out if it. Some people have a stronger psyche and willpower, and can do it on their own. Others are not, and need help. Of course, it’s much more complicated than that, and I’m not qualified to go into any details here. So I’ll stop here.
(*) I’m not by any means an expert here, but the “high” you get from some types of addictions can - in some people - be replaced by e.g. hard physical exercise where you can enjoy the pleasures of endorphin release. There are lots of documented stories of drug addicts that as part of their rehabilitation replaced whatever drug they were abusing with hard exercise or extreme sports.
2 Likes
I don’t believe your nonsensical posts are aimed at debate. However addiction whilst complex, is also fairly well evidenced, it requires willful ignorance to make such a strident and erroneous assertion. The last person I saw make such a foolish comment was Peter Hitchens, the less talented brother of the late Christopher. I once read a two page article by him denying the existence of Dyslexia, it was very edifying. Well, it was very edifying about Peter Hitchens, it told me nothing about dyslexia, as that is precisely what Peter Hitchens knew about it, judging from his many comments on the topic.
I see that @Cognostic and @Get_off_my_lawn have beaten me to the rest, I can only suggest that @RichardtheRaelian read their posts carefully. Though I have little expectation he will of course.
2 Likes
As an RN, a paramedic, and a recovered alcoholic . . . I disagree that addiction is a choice, and I do see it as a disease.
The “choice” part is choosing to manage the disease. As an anology, consider diabetes. It seems that everyone knows a diabetic who refuses to manage the disease because they are stubborn and/or stupid, and they don’t eat they way that they should, they don’t test their blood sugar, and don’t adhere to a lifestyle of exercise and healthy choices. As a consequence, they get their legs amputated, they go blind, they have strokes and kidney failure, and so forth.
No one doubts that diabetes is a disease, but the choice part is managing it . . . and it is the same with alcoholism and addiction. The disease itself does exist, and one does not choose to be an alcoholic any more than one chooses to be a diabetic.
And if alcoholism and addiction are moral failings, then it’s the same moral failing when a diabetic doesn’t eat right and doesn’t make the other lifestyle changes that may be required with any number of chronic diseases.
So, I say that someone chooses to not manage the disease . . . not that someone chooses to have the disease, and I strongly believe that this distinction is important.
In my case, I’ve been sober for almost 18 years. I know any number of alcoholics who seem bitter, angry, and hostile because they feel like they’ve lost something by not being able to drink.
I–however–see people with cancer, people whom are quadripeligics, people with AIDS, people with burns and amputations . . . and I realize that nobody gave me a warranty when I was born which states that I’d never have a disease.
I have to manage my disease by abstaining from alcohol, drinking non-alcoholic beer at social gatherings, and recognizing when I’m tempted to relapse. If I’m given a choice between this or any of the other conditions that I’ve mentioned, then I’ll take the alcoholism every time.
Sure, it would be nice to never have a disease, but that isn’t realistic either.
So, I consider myself lucky.
2 Likes
Well said. The part with choosing not to have the addiction as a disease can be seen more clearly when you consider cases like the one cited below, where a kidnapper forces drugs on the victim, even injects them. Keeping the victim for a long enough time, it is quite possible to force the victim to become highly unvoluntarily addicted to opiates and whatnot. These cases obviously have absolutely nothing to do with moral failings or choice, unless once considers being kidnapped by a psychopath is a choice.
1 Like
How awful, and I agree with your points.
The news blurb that you included in your post reinforces my experience as a paramedic, as I’ve often seen pimps take teenage runaways and force drugs on them until they were addicted, and then use access to drugs as a tool to keep them working as (for all intents and purposes) sex slaves.
Often, these runaways were horribly abused at home, and this abuse is perceived as “normal” . . . and the savvy pimp is very aware of this, and he knows how to exploit this vulnerability to make money from the sex trade.
Forcing drugs on these runaways and deliberately creating addiction are a part of this dynamic.
Yeah, it’s a cynical and disgusting business and business practice (to the extent that exploitation of vulnerable people qualifies as business rather than outright crime). In any case, this underlines how some people end up with addictions not as a choice, but because of sheer bad fucking luck and extreme circumstances.
1 Like
Yes, I agree.
And–as a healthcare worker–stigmatizing them because of a perceived lack of morality and/or willpower only enables the process to continue.
1 Like
Let’s not consider diabetes, an actual disease. Not the same as alcoholism. It’s an actual illness whether people manage it or not. You have not yet established alcoholism as a disease. The analogy fails.
The choice is also managing one’s alcohol intake. Some people do and some people don’t. Remember we are not arguing that addiction is not real. People can become addicted and suffer real withdrawal from many substances. (Addiction is also different than compulsion. Compulsive disorders are real. We are specifically discussing the ‘disease’ nature of alcoholism.
The current edition, DSM-5, classifies alcoholism, now referred to as Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) or Substance Use Disorder (SUD), as a mental disorder presenting both physical and mental symptoms.
Not a disease.
Labeling alcoholism as a disease was a move by the medical industry, of which you claim to be a part, to treat people in a way that insurance companies, hospitals, and treatment facilities could benefit from the treatment. (Treatment? There is none.) There is no successful model of alcoholic treatment. None.
The moral failing model is as old as the Flintstones: You are the one bringing this up not me. It is a religious argument perpetuated by ancient religious America and the AA model of recovery and its step model.
STEP ONE: Admit that I am powerless over my alcoholism.
STEP TWO: I believe that a power greater than myself could restore my sanity. (Not cure me of my disease.)
STEP THREE: Made a decision to my will (my moral failings) over to a God. As I understand him.
STEP FOUR: (Why did I slip ‘moral’ into step three? Because of step 4.) Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself.
It gets worse…
STEP FIVE: Admitted our moral shortcomings “The exact nature of our wrongs.”
STEP SIX: I let God remove all my moral deficits and shortcomings.
This is what you are attempting to debunk with your comments on 'morality." Why in the hell would I go there? You are attributing shit to me that I have not said and I do not believe in. Please stop. That is polite as I am going to get should you continue.
So you have been sober for 18 years and are not going to rely on personal testimony I hope. You think you have a disease and so it’s true and everyone else should think the same? Is that how the argument goes? You have still not established Alcoholism as a disease. Even worse: even if alcoholism was a disease, the disease model does nothing to treat it. There is no successful treatment for alcoholism. There are people who make the choice to quit drinking.
Really? Now we are going to cancer? Another fallacious comparison. People get cancer and it is real. AIDS? Quadriplegics, people with burns and amputations? Are you even remotely serious? None of this has anything to do with Alcoholism unless, of course, you are citing it as an underlying mental or physical condition that manifests in alcoholic behavior.
What would it look like if you had simply said: "I have to manage my behavior by simply abstaining from alcohol. When I drink alcohol, I tend to drink too much.
I really question the comment
That is a weird comment. I am tempted to throw away my life and spend all my time drinking? How is one “Tempted to relapse?” I’m suggesting that “relapse” is not the temptation. You have been there and done that. What do you think the temptation is? Have you explored this? Alcohol is not the temptation.
There are a lifetime of good memories, good feelings, and positive associations, paired with drinking behavior. Outside of being addicted and needing a drink to alleviate flu-like symptoms of withdrawal, there is a hell of a lot more going on than just the “temptation of relapse.” I would suggest that there is no temptation to relapse. Fear of ‘relapse’ is what prevents your drinking behavior. You don’t want to be that person again. And so… you choose not to drink. Bravo for you. You are a rare person who can learn from mistakes and not repeat them.
3 Likes
As for alcoholism being a disease, there are points that you may not have considered:
- Just like with diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and schizophrenia, there is a genetic component. Native Americans have a shallow gene pool, and are susceptible to it just like diabetes or high blood pressure.
- It takes awhile (often many years) for an alcoholic to work up to a huge intake of alcohol per day (“tolerance”). If such an alcoholic goes sober for a long time–even if it’s ten years–and then starts drinking again, the tolerance starts (usually in a few weeks) right where it left off ten years earlier. This means that there are persistant biochemical changes in an alcoholic’s metabolism . . . which is something in common with diabetes.
- There are different versions of an enzyme called “alcohol dehydrogenase” that metabolize alcohol in different ways . . . and there is very strong (but controversial) evidence that alcoholics have inherited specific versions of the enzyme that predispose a person to alcoholism . . . and, again, I make a comparison to diabetes because of a defect in the hormone that manages sugar (although there is a difference between a hormone and an enzyme, and they should not be confused with each other).
- When identical twins are separated at birth, they have similar incidence of alcoholism, while fraternal twins seperated at birth do not.
We can get into a debate about defining what a disease is, but in alcoholism we have a defective metabolism of a substance like we do in diabetes, we have a hereditary component like we do in diabetes and/or cancer, and it goes into remission or can flare up again just like diabetes, it interferes with nutrition like diabetes.
I could also compare it with other disorders like phenylketonuria, where a genetic component keeps a person from metabolizing phenylalanine properly, and must limit it in the diet . . . again, because of a defective enzyme.
Alcoholism has so much in common with other conditions that we refer to as diseases that I’m comfortable calling it a disease . . . as I’m a practical person, and approaching it as a disease–which should be treated–seems like the best approach.
I know everyone likes to fact check (as they should, as I like to fact check), so I will put in links later because I have to get ready for work.
2 Likes
“The risk of developing alcoholism depends on many factors, such as environment. Those with a family history of alcoholism are more likely to develop it themselves (Enoch & Goldman, 2001); however, many individuals have developed alcoholism without a family history of the disease. Since the consumption of alcohol is necessary to develop alcoholism, the availability of and attitudes towards alcohol in an individual’s environment affect their likelihood of developing the disease. Current evidence indicates that in both men and women, alcoholism is 50–60% genetically determined, leaving 40-50% for environmental influences.”
It seems that addiction and being an addict, whilst synonymous, are distinct. Some people are born addicts, in the sense they are genetically predisposed towards addiction, others who are not can still become addicted, and thus are addicts, but we are describing two distinct but overlapping causes. At least that’s how I have always understood it, perhaps I’m wrong?
“In a review in 2001, McLellan et al. compared the diagnoses, heritability, etiology (genetic and environmental factors), pathophysiology, and response to treatments (adherence and relapse) of drug dependence vs type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and asthma. They found that genetic heritability, personal choice, and environmental factors are comparably involved in the etiology and course of all of these disorders, providing evidence that drug (including alcohol) dependence is a chronic medical illness.”
2 Likes
Genetic components are not diseases: If you come from an alcoholic family you have a higher chance of being an alcoholic. This is a fact. Here is another fact for you… Most alcoholics come from families that do not drink. Go figure that one out. White males (74.27%) and females (65.10%) have the highest rates of alcohol consumption. Your not saying anything. There is a genetic component to everything. So what. Demonstrate alcoholism is a disease.
No it does not. Tolerance can build extremely rapidly. alcohol tolerance is affected by how much and how often you drink, there are a few other factors to consider. For example, you might have a natural tolerance to it due to factors like your metabolism or physical health.
I’ve worked with teens who could chug bottles of Daniels and still function. Some of the factors that affect tolerance include:
- Genetics
- Gender
- Age
- Frequency of drinking
- Amount of alcohol consumption at once
- Overall physical health
- How much food you have eaten
- Medications you might take
- Your family’s history of alcohol abuse
- Socialization around alcohol consumption
So we will wait for the definitive research… You have still said nothing.
And… what conclusion did you draw from this study? Therefore alcoholism is a disease? Do you even hear what you are saying? Okay, there is a genetic component to alcoholism… Um… “so what” That does not qualify it as a disease.
That’s what this is. You are saying alcoholism is a disease and I have challenged you to prove it. I do not buy the disease model of alcoholism, nor does the DSM 5. (As previously stated) It is a medical model used to make money for the medical industry.
That does not make it a disease. Your comfort means nothing. Your personal experience is not a good enough reason to call it a disease. A genetic component does not qualify it as a disease.
Pretending people are sick and have a disease when they do not can have devastating life consequences. I would never victimize a client by telling them they have a disease. On the other hand, if I met a poor soul who happened to believe it and had religious leanings, AA would be a perfect referral;. If you need to pretend you have a disease to stay symptom-free, more power to you. I do not believe alcoholism is a disease and thus far, your arguments have been extremely weak. (And nothing I have not seen before.)
1 Like
Most alcoholics come from families that do not drink. If you are in an alcoholic family, you are four times more likely to have an alcohol problem, genetic or learned, the jury is not in. Nevertheless - most alcoholics come from families with no alcohol problems. (Figure that one out.)
1 Like