How do I tell my friends I don't want to do the Alpha course?

[BumperliciousVsTheDailyHate]

Some lovely friends of mine have just asked me and DH if we want to do the Alpha Course. I'm not completely adverse to it but I don't particularly want to at the moment for several reasons:

1. I work 9 hour days, and by the time I get done with dinner and putting 2 yo DD to bed I get about 2 hours before having to go bed, the last thing I want to do is go and be sociable, articulate and thoughtful
2. I'm an atheist, though I was into religion and church until I was a teen then got completely put off it after my mum dragged me a along to a born-again Christian church.
3. We couldn't get a babysitter, though I could go on my own, I just really don't want to
4. I don't think it would make me change how I feel, I don't want it to change how I feel, I am perfectly happy as an atheist. I think it would be a waste of time.

Can anyone help me let my friends down in a nice way, that doesn't belittle the way they feel. We have discussed religion, and they know how I feel. They are very strong in their beliefs and very up front about them, though not in a pressurising way. They are really lovely and I don't want to offend them but to be honest I struggle to muster up the energy to make conversation with my husband at the moment. But I need a better reason than 'I can't be bothered'. I'm not adverse to the Alpha Course per se, I have seen very good reviews on it, but it smacks a little of brain washing to me.

What do I say?

That's a good question, but I think the answer must lie in something of the spirit in which Jesus healed, and often asked people to keep it low key and not brag about it. It's like if there was all this documented evidence, there would not be the case for faith - Bertrand Russell said that if he died and God was, after all, real, he would point his finger at God and say 'you, sir, gave us insufficient evidence'. It almost seems that God chooses to present himself in this way, so that those who want to can dismiss him and those who take that step to believe can do so. All this may seem like copping out to you, but I'm exploring it myself really.
Jesus' claims - yes, it's other peoples words, but the oral tradition of the time being the strong system it was makes it highly likely that he was credibly reported.
Sorry that I claimed something to be untrue about you - I think you said in an earlier post you did not want proof of God either being there or not being there.
I guess it does come down to the fact that no amount of evidence can prove the existence or not of God or any other supernatural being. It just doesn't work like that. But what I see in my life, in other lives throughout the world and through history, and the experiences I have along with the wide reading and thought I have put into it all convinces me. But facts alone never would. It comes down to relationship in the end - and I fear that is where I will get labelled as that loon in the corner. Oh well.

Exactly. There is a lot of hypocrisy. Christians who insist on faith schools being allowed to select pupils have conveniently forgotten the principle of Grace, for example.

Lots more, I am sure.

I completely agree with UQD. I have no doubt that an evangelist by the name of Jesus existed and had many followers. But I really struggle with the idea of a God who insists on humans prostrating themselves in worship, without any proof. Would God be that egotistical?

I am actually immensely drawn towards Christian values - I feel very strongly about issues of social justice. It's just God I have trouble with.

I feel strongly that the American-style "You just have to believe" model is wrong. You should actually be a good person - not just believe in God.

"the oral tradition of the time being the strong system it was makes it highly likely that he was credibly reported"

This is clutching at straws, sorry.

"But I really struggle with the idea of a God who insists on humans prostrating themselves in worship, without any proof. Would God be that egotistical?" Me too. I mean why do you even need to believe in god - it's irrelevant surely regards of whether there is one or not.

How do you know the thing you are having this "relationship" with is called "god" and is the same thing other people call "god"?

You didn't exactly misquote me, Madhair - I did say proof was not the issue, and I hope I have explained what I mean by that.

I thought this was quite interesting
quantum mechanics and the afterlife

Just because there are loads of people who purport to be Christians who don't act like Christians [especially in America] doesn't mean the original teachings weren't the right ones to live by.

But they may not be exclusive to Christianity.

Why clutching at straws dollius? This is widely recognised at being the case.
UQD, hmmmm. I suppose it's something to do with the fact that it's a shared experience, with millions of others, and that it is based in something, ie the bible and words of Jesus, not simply in an airy fairy experience which anyone could have at anytime. It's more grounded than that.
Yes you've explained what you mean, I just need to go back and read without 2 manic children screaming HSM songs through singstar

no but impossible to tell what modern 'civilized' morality with emphasis on social justice would be without Christ. Buddhism very important but not so influential in the West, and social justice not so central, afaik.

As for God insisting on worship, I'd be inclined to agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that worship can be a deeply profound and affirming experience for the worshipper, and can also be an incredible powerful means whereby one finds the reassurance and peace beyond understanding that makes faith so real.

But you still don't "know" that the Thing you are worshipping is real.

My point is that just because the teachings of Christianity are valuable and right, that has nothing to do with there being a God.

MHD - I'm sorry, but we don't have any reliable proof that what is written in the Bible is meant to be taken literally.
And it's not "widely recognised" at all, is it? Otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate.

"As for God insisting on worship, I'd be inclined to agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that worship can be a deeply profound and affirming experience for the worshipper"

Sorry, but what has one got to do with the other?

Sorry I wasn't clearer, really should be bathing kids Just that if it was only of benefit to God, worship that is, it would seem like he was that egotistical, but worship is of incredible benefit to the believer, so God has designed it out of love for us as well as the other way round.
Re the widely recognised thing, I was talking about the system of oral tradition of the time, which is recognised as recording things much more accurately than the whole word-of-mouth thing as we know it now. I'm not a whole bible as completely literal sort, but as for the gospels, I have studied them in enough depth to be firmly convinced that they credibly represent the actual Jesus.

Possibly not, UQD. But I can be pretty damn sure, from the experience that goes with the relationship. But I wouldn't arrogantly state that I Know. Faith is just that - putting my trust in somebody that I can't ever prove or even see. I can't really quantify it - it's not a logical thing or something that can be solved with a rational argument. So we'll probably go round in circles forever.
Baths and Strictly call, much as I'm enjoying a bit of theology on a Saturday tea time.

But there are also many people who argue very convincingly that aspects of the gospels are really metaphorical - for example, the feeding of the 5,000 could be taken as an example of Jesus sharing food to emphasise the importance of caring for your neighbours - ie as a model for social justice, as opposed to the "might is right" model that prevailed at the time. There may not have been 5,000 people at all - the number is just used for the story. Either way, you just don't know.

And as for this: "Just that if it was only of benefit to God, worship that is, it would seem like he was that egotistical, but worship is of incredible benefit to the believer, so God has designed it out of love for us."
I find this rather convenient and, frankly, manipulative if it really is the case.

It still is very far from convincing.

I really do believe that it there is a lot more to being a decent and good human being than belief in God. As UQD says - why do we need to believe? Why does it matter so much?

"Faith is just that - putting my trust in somebody that I can't ever prove or even see."
I really don't agree. I have "faith" in my relationship with my DH, for example, and it is certainly something that I can prove and see.

Sorry, don't want to come across as picking on you MHD. Just really want to know what your thoughts are.

I attend church from time to time with my DH and children because I feel strongly drawn towards it and towards Christian values. But I know that I can't battle my inability to believe in God any more and I am going to have to decide whether or not to continue.

I, too, have felt strongly "at peace" when entering some churches, or while praying. But I know that this is something within me, not something external which is happening to me.

Perhaps I do believe in God, but as something that is within us as human beings - something that exists because of us, not for us, and not something that created us.

Dollius there are plenty of people who go to church because they feel strongly attracted to christian values but who struggle to believe in a supernatural presence. You don't have to reject christianity and the church because you struggle with a belief in God - it is more common than you might think! I see God as a mystery that is intertwined with the mysteries of the natural world, something undefinable and unknowable, something at one with science and the way the universe works, something that may or may not be revealed with further scientific discovery. I am agnostic, but this is the way I entertain the idea of God. And the bible, both the gospels and the OT, certainly describes God in terms of metaphor.

No worries dollius, I don't think you're picking on me.
I suppose for me it comes down to what something UQD said earlier; 'christian values' of such things as loving your neighbour, justice for the oppressed etc are not exclusive to christians, but permeate all humanity (and as an aside I believe this is due to the fact we are all made in the image of God, so such values are inherent though often repressed/renounced) - so following Jesus for the values alone is somehow lacking. There is more to it than that. There are many good people in the world, but the christian message is not primarily about being good, although that necessarily flows from it. It comes down to the basic tenets of Christianity: sin, the cross and reconciliation. These are big issues, values alone is not going to cut it. Jesus' life was certainly admirable in terms of values, but no more than Buddhas, or others in history who have been great people. His miracles, his sayings and ultimately his death and resurrection are what sets him apart, and in the end we need to decide whether we're going to follow the person of Jesus in his good teachings or in his wholeness. I guess the thing about metaphor with the feeding of the five thousand etc, is that if we said that we'd have to discount all the miracle accounts as metaphor, and we'd be left with something slightly weakened - his message was backed up by his actions. I believe the gospel were true eyewitness accounts, I believe that if he'd simply been a wise but human rabbi his followers would not have gone on to be so completely sold out, even gave their lives, and the explosion of Christianity would be unexplained.
Why have a faith? Why not? I can't imagine not having a hope, not having something more, being happy with death being the end and the rest meaning nothing within eternity.
You say you have faith in your dp etc - but he is seen, is tangible, so I'm not sure faith is the word, except in the sense of faithfulness, ie trust. But faith is the essence of things unseen. Saying that, though, I have tangible experiences of God, for me it's not a blind belief in something undefinable and out there. There is more than that.
I realise I'm on a bit of a stream of consciousness so apologise I'm not making sense. Also attempting to watch Strictly come dancing at the same time. Multitasking was never my thing

MadHairDay, how can you "believe the gospel were true eyewitness accounts" when they not only contradict each other (which, in many ways, could be shown as a strength, eyewitness accounts being notoriously unreliable ) but were also written many years after the events?

I suppose the contradictions make them more authentic. If they all agreed in every single detail that may be somewhat suspicious. As it is, if an event is covered by a range of newspapers you will often find small differences in the details, even contradictions. In the case of the gospels, the contradictions don't take away from the events, just make for slightly muddled date order or similar. I am not saying, in saying I believe they are true eyewitness accounts (or at least based upon such) that this means every word is truth in as much that all details are important, iyswim. These were written between 20 and 40 years after the events they describe, if we were writing today about events in the 80s there would be enough eyewitnesses around to make the accounts authentic. If the gospels were fabricated, metaphorical or such, they'd have been swallowed up in the mists of time pretty quickly, but those who were there could testify. I mentioned the oral tradition thing, but added to that, a lot of scholars put forward that a combination of factors went towards the making of the gospels, for example the existence of an earlier gospel, use of written fragments and other sources, so in other words they didn't stand alone, they were grounded in reality. There is loads that can be read around on this subject, and suffice to say scholars aren't in agreement, but to say that any kind of eyewitness account is disproved or discounted would be untrue. Perhaps I used the wrong terminology in the words 'widely accepted' about oral tradition etc, I think I was trying to portray that memories in those times were not as we see them now, there was very much more telling of the story, in chapter and verse, so to speak, down the generations.
The gospels were written near enough to the event to be a valid account. I suppose it's a bit like now, we have certain sources we draw on for historical accounts, eg books, the internet and yes eyewitness accounts, well the equivalent then was the oral tradition and also the written accounts. Oh dear I'm being a tad repetitive. Could go on, but won't

Ok basically all myth systems start from an anthropomorphosizing of natural occurences (the cycle of the seasons, birth, death, weather etc). Then there's a set of rules for generally pro-social behaviour (be nice, don't cheat, don't break the rules) which depend to a greater or lesser extent on the society in which the particular myth system was invented (how much emphasis there is on either killing or recruiting 'Others' will depend on the geography and the population density). Then there's a layer of opportunistic tweaking to ensure that the myth system works for the benefit of the class or individual who propagate it. For a myth system to succeed and have staying power, there's got to be either a better offer attached than the existing ones, or the core of it's got to appeal to aggressive people who find in it a justification for their aggression.
That's how religions work. No supernatural imput necessary or remotely plausible.

I'm increasingly tempted to sign up to Alpha for my 'getting out of the house, leaving dh to enjoy his dc's bedtime & NOTHING to do with work' activity for this term, actually.

Serious question for Alpha proponents.

If my personal agenda was 'I'm an atheist, I have serious concerns about the uncritical way in which Christian mythology is being presented to my dc in school & I'd like to update my knowledge of the 'enemy''

...& I was entirely open about this - would they kick me off or try to convert me?

I'm fine with the latter, but if it's the former then I'll save myself the time & leave the place for someone more vulnerable, sorry, open-minded.

Interestingly, recent research (which I can't be arsed googling at this time of night) shows that our smaller monkey cousins have a sense of fair play and dislike cheats. Nowt to do with deities.