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?

sorry about the rsi mmrsceptic . I'm going to stop now too, because I'm not supposed to be here adn because everybody is leaving

'If you knew there was a tidal wave coming, would you tell your family and friends (and hopefully others) to get off the beach?'

Does that mean you think those who don't believe in the Christian God will not be 'saved' ?

lol at the idea of putting faith in Dawkins
[groaning irony]

oh my god does nobody understand how to analyse or even read a logical argument

no you didn't greeny or you would have read the post to fennel who also said she didn't accept the premises

memo to self: never do one last check of "I'm on"

The difference is though, if you know there was a tidal wave coming, from past experience you could reliably predict it would be here in a few hours and would smash everything in its path, so of course you would tell people to get off the beach.

The "tidal wave" you're referring to is always coming but never arriving because it's an article of faith. We have no reason to believe in it apart from an old book that says "believe in it". Completely different from a tidal wave.

I did read it

and saw nothing in it that invited an intelligent response

but poor you, surrounded by fools

I often think it must be weird to be Dawkins and be idolised to the point of guruhood by some of his fans.

well you know, greeny, it's not that hard to understand, but you didn't

mmrsceptic I can see the "logical argument" - it's just that standing outside of it, an atheist doesn't accept the premises involved.

From within it, yes, Christian dogma makes no logical sense whatsoever unto itself.

My mum sent me a copy of The Dawkins Delusion. It made a few fairly obvious criticisms (as no one actually thinks Prodf D is omniscient its not suprising he has some holes) but its main thrust seems to be 'ooer, he protests too much, bet he will turn Christian'. Bit pathetic really. Personal attack more than really answering the questions, IMO.

hi Lady, it doesn't matter that you don't accept the premise, because you are analysing Christian claims

a premise isn't a fact, it's a premise, a proposition

the argument is the process by which the truth or otherwise of premises can be determined, or more strictly, whether an argument is valid or invalid, which can just mean do they contradict each other

so really my example just establishes that at least one of those premises must be false

I think you're being a tad solipsistic here mmr

the thread isn't actually all about you and your one hard-laboured point

Agree LadyBathtub, the "tidal wave" imagery is rather misleading (intentionally so IMO) - Christianity has always used the threat of Armageddon to keep its followers in line and scare its detractors

but we have been living in the "end times" for hundreds of years - surely even the most intractable of dogma-fed fanatics should by now be beginning to emerge from the spiritual bunkers and consider other perspectives?

Grimma
Did you not get the memo from Atheist Central Bureau?
He's our new Overlord.

Yes I know

So within Christianity and christian belief, you're right and the logical failure of christian dogma is illustrated.

But some atheists baulk at it because just to start with a premise like "God made everything" or whatever demands refutation.

It is as if you said:

Goat's cheese is the best cheese
Only cows make cheese

I mean we can see that these are logically incompatible but we can still argue that they are bollocks to start with.

MrsSceptic, iirc, Augustine's ontological proof of the existence of God is similar but perhaps more subtle.

It's based on the premise that existence is a predicate; i.e. to exist is more perfect than not to exist. Therefore if God is perfect, he has to exist, as not existing is less than perfect.

One of the problems with this (my one shining moment at UG philosophy!) is that if you turn it on its head, and assume that the Devil is wholly evil, then the devil cannot exist...

no, i know that, i just asked because I was interested in what dawkins had to say about it

then there was the ridicule and contempt, and I think I'm allowed to respond

and changing the subject usually happens with a non beatific twinge of irritation when an atheist who fancies him/herself as a scholar has tangled and lost

pofacedandproud good question - thought that the tidal wave statement might not be the best thing to write!

I guess the question is, what do religions say there is to be saved from, and saved for what, and how does that happen?

As far as I can tell (am prepared to stand corrected), buddhism, islam, judaism, atheism, secularism, newageism etc, all depend on the follwer doing certain things in order to be safe (which means, happy/saved from God's anger/successful/enlightened, etc depending on the religion). This means the pressure is always on YOU to be good enough/holy enough/righteous enough/clever enough/have enough clever thoughts to be "right" (whatever that means in the religion.

Jesus came with grace. He said, all people are WAYYYYY from perfect, in fact, you don't love God with all your heart, and you've rejected Him in favour of your own way of doing things. There is no law, no system which you can follow which can make up for this failure, and God is angry, and there will be consequences. However, Jesus was prepared to die, and take God's whole anger on himself in our place, and give us his perfection.

Grace = a free gift - we get Jesus' perfection, he takes our crap on himself, and we are saved from God's anger. In every other religion we have to be good enough in ourselves, which, if we're honest, none of us ever live up to what we would like to.

So, you could spend your whole life trying to please God/yourself/everyone else, and fail, or you can say "yes please, I'd love someone else to do all that work for me, and just have a God who loves me perfectly who I get to be with in a new, perfect world."

On a logical basis, which is preferable and easier?

I guess the problem people have with Jesus is that they would rather keep their pride than say "I can't do it."

And bumper - just say no. Have that song from Grange Hill in my head now...

Hello again all. Blimey, I don't come on MN for one night and look what you've turned my thread into

I (well - DH) text them and said 'It's not really our thing, thanks' or words to that effect and they responded and seemed fine. I'm sure they would be offended as they are lovely lovely people, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't being unreasonable. I wasn't really offended by their asking, I've seen a few signs around work for the same course at their church so they are obviously just trying to get the numbers.

I must say UQD has hit the nail on the head for me with most of his posts on this thread. Part of me feels I should go, just to say that I have. But, it's not like I am a stranger to the Church. I think I mentioned that we went regularly as children, and I 'believed' and participated but I think only in that way you do as a child when you want all the grown ups to think you are grown up.

The last regular church we went to was born-again Christian, happy clappy (though they do have good songs ) where people were regularly 'over come by the spirit of the Lord' fainting and convulsing and stuff. While at first I was freaked out but eventually I got really into it and really 'tried to be over come by the spirit of the Lord' myself. It's amazing how you can psychologically and physiologically work yourself up into these frenzies... The also did the 'tongues' thing, and there would be a translator. I went off it when I was about 15 and got a Sunday job, and education and reason took over for me.

Ladyofthebathtub's quote:
'I'm as atheist as they come but for me, a part of that is being inherently also agnostic. As a true rationalist I have to admit that there are things I can't know, and I cannot know for certain that there isn't a god.' is the same for me, I say I am an atheist, but am open minded enough to know that I can't be certain god doesn't exist.

I must admit part of me would be worried that I would offend them at the course (they are helping out) as I do secretly think 'you loonies' about people who are religious. I know that's pretty offensive to say, so sorry in advance to any body who is religious.

While I think we can all agree that some Alpha courses will be more evangelical than others, the techniques are pretty scary, and I have no doubt that they often work.

I do wonder what it would take to change my mind (if anything). If I just woke up tomorrow and decided I was going to believe in god do you think I eventually would? Is it just a case of telling yourself you now believe in god? Is a gradual group think? I go to church a few times and before I know it I'm preaching with the best of them? If not, what does it take? The evidence isn't going to change, only the interpretation of an event as evidence. What do the Alpha course think they can say to change my mind? Maybe it isn't even fundamentally about a belief in god, maybe you just like the people, the lifestyle they are offering, the way they make you feel like you belong?

Ok, I'm getting really carried away now, but interesting debate. I almost want to go to see what it is like, or maybe even to test my reliance... I won't though, I'd much rather spend the time having a discussion on mumsnet from the comfort of my sofa. But who's turn is it to bring dinner?

Oh pofaced that all illustrates a lot of what I find so unpleasant and nasty about Christianity.

Why couldn't god just not be so angry? Why does his son have to be tortured to make up for our sins that god is angry about? How very horrible.

And what is so attractive about it being "easier" to let someone else suffer so that, simply by believing (NB not by doing good works, just by having faith) we can win ourselves a cushy reward? While those who would rather think for themselves and come to their own evidence-based conclusions, however good they are during their lives, get kicked out?

How very unfair and appealing to the most selfish and grasping parts of human nature. I just don't understand how a religion with these tenets can ever think of itself as having anything to do with "morality".

Oh bum sorry that was to woowa not pofaced, oops.

Yes, but it's just a proposition lady

they're both Christian propositions, there's no point in writing anything else because anything else wouldn't be a Christian proposition, and i'm not trying to refute anything except one of these Christian propositions

i mean you can say -- well that's bollocks but strictly speaking and mn notwithstanding that's not really an argument

you have to say, this is why

you can't argue against God made everything unless you use logic, because it's empirically impossible to disprove

habb, that has thrown me in the sense of, do we have to accept as a given that existence is more perfect than non existence

erk

Well, that's the same problem you're asking others to wrestle with, I guess! The logic is only relevant if you accept the premise, and if you do that means you either lose the devil or accept that he is not entirely imperfect. To me it's entertaining but a bit pointless....

bumper, glad it's all sorted

very interesting woowa esp as I can't work out which side you are on