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?

Ooh, I can do speaking in tongues. Flobablobalobalob! BLLLLbbbthhhh! (cue gratuitous Shakira mockery) A-WHuuuuuuuuHh!

Though generally a couple of pints of communion wine help.

I reckon they are really Parselmouths but don't know it

thatsnotmymonster - I wouldn't expect psychology undergrads to have sufficient knowledge of either evolution or anatomy/physiology to be able to "disprove" the evolution of the human eye, and I've never heard of any university essays outside of maths getting 100%. In science you can't fundamentally prove or disprove anything - that is only possible in maths. Your story suggests your tutor was not as on the ball as one might hope.

wrong thread Habbs.

Habbs, you're exactly right about not expecting psych undergraduateto have sufficient knowledge of evolution or anatomy/physiology (tho that is a big part of the course- particulary in neuropsychology and comparative psychology) so I think the essays are marked in accordance to the level of knowledge you are expected to have, the amount of research you have done, the way you have presented your argument based on those things.

I knew of quite a few people in different courses getting 20/20 for essays. Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen regularly.

Well, dh and I have worked in HE for over 20 years between us, in a variety of institutions. 100% is an odd mark for an essay, ime.

Sorry - that was rude. Am tired and 38 weeks pg, if that's an excuse. We can politely agree to disagree, is what I meant.

er, nope, sorry, right thread. Ignore me

Grimma, most churches I know ask for the gift aid in order that they can reclaim back more money to give to the poor. I wouldn't dream of attending an institution that was so focussed in on itself that covenanting was merely for its own use and that of its members. Thankfully, most churches at least attempt to look more outwards than that. Christianity isn't just a little club with lots of arrogant self-righteous deluded arses waving their hands around in manic fashion, but unfortunately can look that way and also unfortunately some get it wrong, as in choosyfloosy's experience of the interpreters 'getting competitive'. ( ) There are in fact warnings in the NT about not using this gift (tongues) in certain ways because it just looks like you're off your trolley. Sigh - I guess I am off my trolley then, talking to my imaginary friend in a flob-a-dob language and not knowing my brain from my rear end. Hmmmm. My first class theology degree (in a secular college so covering in depth all the big religions) hasn't stopped me from all this brainwashed twaddle, not much hope then eh?
Going back to the point about charitable giving though; what I and I wish all churches would follow is the teaching that resounds throughout the bible; that of our worship meaning nothing if we're not feeding the poor, freeing the oppressed, looking after the orphans. Looking outwards is what we are all about, despite some 'christians' acting to the contrary. We can't get it all right all the time you know
Solidgold and UQD, I love your posts despite them being somewhat offensive and intolerant, but luckily I'm a big girl and know my own mind enough to be able to cope. :-) All this stuff about comfort blankets and crutches etc though - wtf would I want to have Christianity as a crutch? It doesn't make life all nice and squishy and easy, the opposite in fact. The thing is, it can never be proved - for then where would faith come in (yes, I know, I know, I can hear the cries of 'copout' but it is actually a strong point) As for comfort blanket in the rituals of your childhood....hmmmm, tell that to my very good friend who was a militant athiest and a highly intelligent tough bloke who is now a completely sold-out Anglican vicar :D
Yep, I was bought up in the Christian faith, mainly in my younger days in a middle of the road anglican church but I've come pretty far from that (though still anglican) and wouldn't want to go back to it for a 'comfort blanket' to save my life, thanks all the same.

No problem, po - I knew where you thought I should be posting. And you were probably right!

I suspected you would probably have a lot of experience Habbibu, still doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I didn't realise getting top marks was meant to be unattainable.

It intrigues me that people feel compelled to be so aggressive and rude towards Christianity/Christians. It isn't acceptable to be so insulting towards any other group of people based on belief, race, education etc.

Well, it is of itself an interesting question, although probably a bit off-topic for this thread. 100% for an essay (not for other types of assessment) would imply that nothing could be done to improve it, and in a piece of written narrative/argument, one might argue that's impossible. DH and I both have humanities backgrounds, and so it would be interesting to hear from social scientists and scientists, but my experience (anecdotally) is the same - unless an entirely factual response is required, some degree of dispute must surely remain.

I did not, however, mean my comments as any slur on you, btw! I'd just be a wee bit suspicious of a tutor who gave 100% on essays (for the reasons outlined above) - it strikes me as slightly lazy marking. But this is way off-topic!

monster, I do so agree with you about it's seen as acceptable to be so mocking about Christians, using such language

of course nobody's going to die from it, but when your having a debate, and some of the ideas are quite complicated, I don't expect it

it's being treated as though one is stupid, which is quite troublesome and annoying

MadHair, I was in a bit of a sarky mood last night.

I do know that some - perhaps most - churches use some of their income on truly charitable works. But ...

DH (for some reason that I can't remember) looked into the published finances of the nearby big evangelical Free Methodist church. They claimed back their tax on everything. But the vast majority of their expenditure was on church buildings and inward-facing activities - the 'club'. Of the remainder, most was on 'outreach' which (to the sceptic) is self serving and not truly charitable. There wasn't a heck of a lot of feeding the poor etc. Lovely new buildings though.

By contrast he also looked at a local Buddhist group. Although they could in law have done exactly as above, they only claimed charitable relief on expenditure which was serving people other than themselves (none of which was proselytising, Buddhists don't seem to do that).

actually ..thinking again.. perhaps I do believe atheists peddle bollocks

that sort of language is quite useful in a certain context

WHile I have an equal-opportunities disdain for all superstition, I think the reason Christians (in general) get the kicking they do in debating forums is that it's Christians (not all of them of course) make such utter annoying nobbers of themselves. Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Wiccans, Jews, Buddhists etc do not harass other people to come and buy their bullshit (and refuse to take no for an answer) in the way that quite a lot of Christian organisations do.
AFAIK while most if not all other religions are happy to have new recruits, they wait for the interested party to come to them rather than constantly bugging people who are NOT interested.

well of course you do!

Though IRL there isn't so very much 'peddling' - I don't know of anything even vaguely equivalent to an Alpha course.

Grimma, I take your point. Some churches shame the name of christianity. Not how it should be. I guess the thing about claiming tax back on everything, including stuff for building repairs etc, is that from our viewpoint we are using this to do stuff for the community, therefore it is an outward thing. If the buildings are merely for those within the church it is truly shameful. Thankfully definitions of church are changing, it's getting away from the four walls thing to what church should actually be, which is much closer to a community model. Jesus never spent much time in what most would call a church, his ministry was in the marketplace, and that's what a lot of churches are looking to do - there is a movement called emergent church which is closer to this way of 'being' church. Anyway, I'm off the point a tad. I'm a member of an anglican church where the building is a money pit, a huge ugly old mausoleum of a building, the gas bills are incredible. It's not even very beautiful as many old churches are. So yes a lot of the income goes towards maintaining it, and we've just had a load of building work done, but it has been planned in a way that will make it more accessible for community use, for instance groups will be using it for workshops, ww groups, toddler groups etc. We wanted to make it more open - round here community hardly happens and it's so sad - inward looking is the last thing we should be. I hope that Methodist church you describe has similar goals, it may have but unseen (although that in itself is not great.)

A friend did it and became a born again Christian afterwards. It really affected our relationship. I was happy for her that she was so happy, but God she banged on about God a lot.

Can you not just say 'No, thanks'?

Yup. Christianity took a very bad turn when it got into building and property development. I do sometimes wonder how many Christians (especially it seems, some of the most 'Bible believing' variety) have actually read what Jesus said about how to pray and possessions and... well, you know what I mean, don't you?

thatsnotmymonster - just spoke to DH - turns out the 20 scale mark scheme at his uni doesn't map to percentages - i.e. 20/20 can be given, but doesn't equal 100% - more like 80+/100. So it's me being daft - I thought it mapped across exactly, but it doesn't. My apologies for doing down your tutor. . Will think more carefully next time.

fwiw - I think any majority group - white men, Christians, etc, in a given society, will be more prone to criticism as they (in part) represent the Establishment.

I love the idea that gentle mockery of religion is "offensive and intolerant." I've barely started.

If these superstitions put themselves out there they've got to be able to take it. I mean, how many people take Scientology or David Icke or flat-earthers seriously and are able to talk about them in non-mocking ways? So why should any other superstition/belief be different?...

Also, what's "complicated" about it?...

(I think I remember now, this was how the "read theology stuff started last year...)

Hab - I once got > 100% in a maths exam at uni .

UQD - I think some of the theological arguments are pretty complicated. Often because they fail to use Occam's razor.