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?

habb sorry I cross posted

I have a thought on what you've said but more next time I hope

ooh yes had forgotten about St Augustine. liking your shining moment in philosophy Habbs!
Sorry you're feeling got at mmrsceptic.

It was funny, pofaced - had missed previous lecture, and starting asking questions - lecturer peeved, and then I (almost accidentally) disproved the devil. He said "very suave", looked pleased, and then carried on. Felt I'd reached a peak with philosophy at that point, and dropped it the following year...

You shouldn't have dropped it. Can't you write 'The Mumsnet Delusion' or something.

Oh, that's a whole 'nother thread. Perhaps "The Mumsnet Deluded" might be better?

Bumperlicious said this: "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"
... and I just wanted to say I read that nodding, as that was exactly my experience too.

Nobody has "faith" in Richard Dawkins - the very idea. He'd be horrified. He is a scientist who enjoys rational debate. I imagine he likes nothing better than people arguing with him about his views and disagreeing with him - but you'd better have your evidence ready.

There is a great anecdote in "The God Delusion" about a scientific colleague being profoundly grateful to a visiting lecturer who disproved a long-standing theory of his. Because that's what scientists do, all the time. They don't get all huffy and defensive and say "but you must Believe!!" - they weigh up the evidence.

Oh, and "The Dawkins Delusion" is not a "great response" - it's a risible, rhetorical, ad hominem attack full of holes, and raises no "objection" to his work which he has not already anticipated and comprehensively dealt with.

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

And if a friend told you this, and all the available evidence pointed towards that tidal wave being a figment of your friend's imagination, would you pack up and get off the beach in a mad panic, or just sigh indulgently and carry on building sandcastles?

Well, I think a lot of people didn't recognise the signs of the tsunami - perhaps another analogy would be better!

You're right, UQD, The Dawkins Delusion is a poor response to a very well written book. Dawkins makes excellent points but the thing is many Christians don't really have this great perceived problem with reconciling evolution/creation, there are many who wouldn't call themselves 'creationists' in the sense that they believe in a 6-day creation and a young earth.
I'm sorry some of your alpha experiences have been so shocking. I've been on a few and led some, they have always been pretty laid back affairs, some people have become Christians, some said no thanks. Never any pressure, any 'worrying techniques' for conversion etc. We simply don't have the right to pressure anyone. The tidal wave analogy is one I'd go along with, because as a (loony charismatic) Christian I don't want to hold back what I believe, because what would be the point of me having such a strong and to be honest unpopular belief if I didn't - well - believe it was true? Why would I put myself through this kind of knocking if I didn't wholeheartedly embrace it as what I believe to be the truth? So I want to share it, actually because I respect those people I talk with so much that I want them to find this truth too - I'd surely be disrespecting them if I held it back, whilst still retaining the belief that it is true? However, also out of respect I would never push anything, never 'attempt to convert' anyone who was a)vulnerable b)not interested or c)not too sure but trying to please.
So Alpha, in its better forms, is not such a bad thing. I suppose it's where you're coming from how you see it, and within that there are those who are never going to 'like' the idea and those who find it helpful.

I'm interested by bumper's "what would it take?" musings as, again, this is something I occasionally wonder myself - sometimes when challenged by Christians, but sometimes unprompted. What would it take? The evidence is still the same - it would take a huge, illogical, irrational leap which would go against everything I have acquired in my brain as an adult. It would feel like infantilisation. "Believing" would seem like forgetting how to speak French, or losing all my accumulated experience of being a father. It would seem like a retrograde step.

Things would be a lot easier if vast swathes of religious believers were simply a bit dim and believed whatever they were told. And I'm sure a lot of them are/do. Unfortunately my circle includes a smattering of Christians who are university graduates, a couple indeed with PhDs. These people are not stupid. They have done degrees in which the whole basis of the way they were taught was: argue, collect evidence, collect counter-evidence, weigh up, learn to mistrust sources, formulate conclusions. And yet their faith seems to go against all of that. It's a source of continual frustration to me.

I wonder about the "community" aspect too, the "instant lifestyle" thing. It's the one thing, if I am honest, that I envy churchy types for - that instant, welcoming "circle" which you know is there without really having to make much effort. You can even move to a new town, find your "type" of church and, hey presto, you have a peer group.

And it's surely no coincidence that there is a LOT of money floating around these new happy-clappy churches - at least, if one can judge by the cars parked outside, the professions of the participants and the notes chucked into the collection plate. It's religion as lifestyle porn - like property shows on the TV. Join us, be like us.

Oh yes, UQD, I'm too - the community is what I miss most about losing my faith. The faith was delusional but the 'family' was real. I miss the singing too - the one thing I liked in Brave New World was the Arch Community Songster of Canterbury .

Well said MadHairDay.

Alpha is only for people who WANT to do it so no pressure is required! Nobody is refuting that it is completely evangelical- as MadHairDay has said- as a Christian we believe in an absolute truth and the whole point is to share it. If you don't want it or are not interested, that's fine.

UQD- I have a 2:1 in Psychology. One of my essays was to prove the evolution of the human eye/visual system. I couldn't do it, none of the evidence stacked up so I disproved it and wrote in evidence of a creator God. Got 20/20. Was very proud cos I thought I would get failed This doesn't prove anything tho, except that I am not really stupid. However, Christianity is nothing to do with intelligence. Also I am not a Creationist.

I go to a very happy clappy type church. And it is in a wealthy area (which we don't live in) tho actually you would never know whilst you were there. There are no collection plates.

good posts UQD [grudging]

Totally agree about the relative lack of community compared with churchgoers. I toyed with the idea of sussing out the Unitarians. DH not keen though, which sort of defeats the purpose.

For intelligent people who persist in religion, it's basically a comfort blanket (usually it's whichever myth system they were brought up in, because the comfort-blanket aspect is reinforced by the familiarity of the rituals, the music, etc). Nothing wrong with that unless/until they start making pests of themselves about it. Though mostly, among the superstitous, it's either the stupid or the messed-up who make pests of themselves (angry at the world? Claim that anger on behalf of your imaginary friend and direct it at 'the Them' ie people who are not friends of your imaginary friend for whatever reason).
WRT alpha courses, my response to an invite would be 'No thanks' and change the subject. If a little more pressure was applied I would say 'No thanks, I'm an athiest.'
And if I had to I would point out that having been to a CofE primary school and, indeed to a Church Youth Group in my teens (purely because I fancied this bloke who was a regular and no, I never got into his pants...) I actually know a fair bit about the basics of Christianity. And still think it's a load of bollocks, so being bored by it over several evenings of my precious time is not actually going to change my mind.
I mean, you have a melange of semi-universal death-and-rebirth myths, all of which would have had their starting points in an observation of the turning seasons, mixed in with some probably-true tales of one of the more charismatic rebel prophets kicking around Israel when it was occupied by the Romans, and over the centuries, one or two nasty-minded bright sparks saw enough potential in this myth system as a tool of conquest (monotheism is more effective than pantheism if you want to win a war) and later nasty-minded bright sparks built on the earlier nastiness, bolting on extras from wherever they landed... Interestingly, of the major myth systems, Christianity is the most parasitic AFAIK and certainly the most aggressively evangelical.

Collection plates? Don't be silly UQD. Clued-up churches get everyone to covenant or gift aid their donations so that they get the tax back.

Even though a lot of what they do is really just a club serving its own members, not really doing anything charitable.

If you want community, take up either kinky sex, historical re-enactment or Morris dancing. Or sports, FFS.

actually, a local am dram society would probably come closest.

I certainly think having a bit of historical perspective and a good knowledge of other myth systems is sound insulation against indoctrination by Alpha and other tenacious evangelical scions.

It's also quite fun to know the Bible and have read it. Some Christians get taken aback when you quote it back at them.

I've been invited to an alpha course. I already am a christian - but a roman catholic, and I don't think that counts for some other types. I've also had to strongly resist an invitation to 'pray together' before work. Because I suspect it would be less of the Our Fathers (and certainly no Hail Marys) and more of the "I really want to praise you" variety. I just say it's not my thing.

I have only ever once quoted the bible. As my colleague points out, catholicism is not really a bible-based faith. It was at college, and someone from the (evangelical) Christian Union started coming to our catholic masses - which was fine - until he asked if it would be OK if he spoke in tongues is so moved... That really isn't our sort of thing, and bizarrely a bible verse came into my head to support my reply that it perhaps wasn't appropriate. Buggered if I can remember what it was now. Divine inspiration I reckon

Hmm
See, I know where to find a sports club but I'm less au fait with how to get in with the kinky sex or Morris dancing communities

'Even though a lot of what they do is really just a club serving its own members, not really doing anything charitable.'

Really? I wouldn't attend a church that did that.

Or do you mean that charitable organisations that are run by Christians are not really charitable?

I'm glad you're not going. I was invited a couple of years ago, by a (fantastic) couple who have gone off to evangelise France(reconverting Europe being God's focus now apparently - fair enough). I was able to refuse despite being absolutely bang in the target market (previous Christian, now agnostic, a bit of a religion tourist) because of a super-strong feeling that now, at 40, I am so so over conversion experiences, falling in love, I Saw Her Standing There; I'm interested in the long haul, marriage, how you keep going for decades without the adrenaline rush. Christian churches seem so often to be entirely focused on the moment of change. At least there's acknowledgement of it in the Bible (the prodigal son's poor old dull brother who just got on with it, Martha having to do the washing up every time Mary wanted to bat her eyelashes at Jesus) but I've never found the moral of the stories very convincing.

As part of my religious tourism I have occasionally gone to very 'Spirit-infused' churches. Speaking in tongues is very strange to listen to I must say (hilarious moment at the most recent one when three people produced different interpretations and got competitive about it). I read an article later on about the linguistics of tongues, demonstrating (from a Christian standpoint actually) that the vowels used in tongues are always within the range of vowels used in the speaker's native tongue IIRC, evidence to me that there's nothing supernatural about it. The article went on to talk about the other functions speaking in tongues had. For me, it expresses so much that is wrong - in Acts of the Apostles, it was about more people understanding the message, since the Toronto Blessing it's about - what? Showing off?

Oh, another poor Dawkins response is Keith Ward's Why There Almost Certainly Is A God. I was very interested to read it but it really got nowhere very much - certainly nothing like what the title suggests. Unpleasantly arch as well.