Dirty Secrets of Christian Evangelism
Saturday June 27, 2009
Both Catholics and Protestants spend a lot of money on missionary programs in the "Unreached Bloc," a largely non-Christian region stretching from Africa to East Asia, with India being a primary target. The tactics can be very unethical and the results very poor. So why do people go through with it? For Christ, they say. I suppose anything can be justified in the name of Jesus, no matter how unethical and harmful.
S. R. Welch writes for the Secular Web:
Missionaries exploit the sick:
Catholic priests had been instructed to learn something of medicine in order to gain access to the bedsides of sick Hindu (and Muslim) children. There, on the pretext of administering medicine, the priests secretly baptized the children before they died. What is troubling are the reports that this practice continues today, with formulas of baptism whispered and holy water sprinkled surreptitiously over non-Christian patients even in the hospices of such well-known orders as the Missionaries of Charity.
Both Westerners and Indians are exploited via fake "orphans":
Exploiting customs that make female children economic burdens on their families, missionaries reportedly induce tribal mothers to relinquish baby girls shortly after birth. Often the mothers are promised that rich Westerners will adopt their daughters and they will live a "much better life." The mother is typically paid about $70 for her child, which is then adopted by Western parents for a "donation" of $2,500.
There is an irony to the notion of tribal "orphans," according to Arvind Neelakandan, a volunteer with the Vivekananda Kendra (VK), a Hindu nonprofit that works among the tribals. In most tribal communities, Neelakandan explains, "Orphans as we know them are nonexistent"; parentless children are typically cared for by their extended family. But, he explains, missionaries will "fleece money from their foreign donors by projecting these very same children as 'orphans'" in fundraising campaigns.
Is it immoral to solicit "conversions" by offering food or medicine? Missionaries don't think so:
Whatever one calls the offer of material allurements in exchange for religious conversion, it does not deserve the appellation of "charity." But this is lost on missionaries like Paul, who offers no apologies when confronted with Hindu objections. "If Hindus believe that certain tactics like offering money, food or clothes to their naked children in return for embracing Christ is immoral, then what can I say?" he protests. "All congregations and missionaries have been advised to follow these techniques, as others will only fail. Sounds immoral but that is the only way."
And just how successful is this, anyway? Not very:
According to the World Evangelization Research Center (WERC), there are more than four thousand mission agencies. Collectively they operate a huge apparatus, manned by some 434,000 foreign missionaries wielding an annual global income of eighteen billion dollars. And yet, for all the money that is spent--an astonishing average of $359,000 for every person baptized--the benefits of evangelism are meager. ... Meanwhile, the quality of life for India's Christian population remains dismal. Despite "crocodile-tears for the oppressed," says Edamaruku, and contrary to apologists' frequent boast that Christianization brings justice and equality to the "untouchables," dalits who convert find that as Christians, they remain "as 'untouchable' as they had been as Hindus." While more than 75 percent of the Catholics in India are dalits, dalits make up less than 5 percent of Indian priests. Most priests come from upper castes.
This is supposed to be the "charitable" face of Christianity. As Welch explains, the helps to breed ethnic and religious strife as new converts are often induced to adopt fanatical attitudes towards their former faith. Missionaries feed and clothe people, but at what price? They are paying a serious ethical price themselves and extracting a large price from local society through increased tensions — not to mention the funds and time that could be better spent on more productive programs.
Christians have been involved throughout the world in caring for the sick (ie Mother Theresa). They have done so out of love.
Athiests under communism have not provided such care. Atheiests such as Peter Singer says that there are many cases when such is nota good use of resources.
So if Christians care, and have set up numerous health care programs over the centuries, why criticise?
Oh, is it because they like to explain about eternity too?
Mother Teresa provided sub-standard care and treated her patients’ suffering as a good thing. That’s love?
Right – communist countries had no hospitals and people just laid dying on the streets.
There are times when it’s better to simply provide what is necessary to make a person’s death more comfortable.
If you object to the post, why not offer some specific objections and criticisms to what I wrote?
You mean, they like to offer things they claim to be explanations, but are just stories.
Hello Mr. Cline,
I read your statements about evangelism and found them interesting. I don’t mean to offend however I must ask a two questions. Do you know the goal of Christian evangelism and do you have an accurate definition of the word Christian. If you read the book of 1John in the Bible you will see in a short five chapters a description of who is and is not a Christian. The purpose of worldwide evangelism is not the conversion of the world or the secret baptism of infants but instead to proclaim good news. We all know the tragedies that happen each day through out the world and many try to explain them. Christians rest in the truth, that we are the created beings of an all omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God that in His loving kindness he spares those who call on His name, from the torment that their own wickedness brings upon them and this world. I am guilty as are you, no one can say that he has not sinned and fallen short of GOd’s standard of perfection so we are all in need of restoration. The good news is, that restoration is available. That Christ paid the price for our wickedness bearing the wrath of the righteous judge on our account, that whowver would believe in Him will have eternal life. The person that says they are a Christian must have embraced that truth and in turn now seek the good of others ahead of themselves because that (as explained in 1John) is what love for God and thankfulness for what He did for us through Christ looks like. We can not love with word alone bu tin deed and truth. That is what the Bible calls the fruit of the Spirit. If you do not see that fruit you are not looking at a Christian. I hope this has cleared somethnigs up. May the God of all creation bless you with the knowledge of the truth unto eternal life in Christ Jesus our LORD.
Christianity is defined by what Christians do and how they behave. There is no Christianity independent of the beliefs and behaviors of Christians themselves.
Sadly Christianity has been defined by what people have done in the name of Christianity. As mentioned previously, a Christian is someone who has been “born-again” meaning they have turned from their sin and selfishness and turned to the living God. They have put their trust in the Bible and whole heartedly believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah that has died on their behalf, out of His mercy and love and not out of them earning or working for their salvation. This is clear in the Bible and that is why I gave the reference of 1John. If you read that book you’ll see Christianity defined and false Christianity condemned. We are using the same word but with drastically different meanings. I hope that this difference is evident to you and that it will reflect in your writings. I too am against lying, stealing and basically buying children like you say in your article. Jesus taught against that. So as a Christian, a follower of Christ I also teach against it. It is wrong that is not loving, nor just, God hates in justice and so do you and I. Doesn’t it make you mad, when people abuse people that are weak and helpless. You want to stand up for them and right the wrong. Well that is good. That is righteous anger and God feels the same way. His name gets abused because they say they are His. When indeed Jesus said, ” If you love me obey my commandments.” He commanded we love God above all and love others as ourself. They reveal their true love and their true “god” by their actions. That is why Jesus warned, ” You can not serve two masters you will either love one or hate the other.” They do not serve Christ. Therefore they are not Christians. By Christ’s on words he said, ” Why do you call me Lord, Lord, but do not the things I say?”
I pray that this will be made clear to you… may you be richly blessed with the a relationship with the sovereign God, through Jesus Christ.
No, that’s merely a definition used by some Christians; it’s not a definition that applies to all Christians.
No, it goes far beyond that. You are assuming that there is an ideal “Christianity” out there that goes beyond what real human beings do and believe; I do not make any such assumption. On the contrary, I deny it completely. There is no such “Christianity” – there is only what Christians themselves do and believe. Regardless of the ideals that Christians hold for themselves, they do not cease to be Christians merely by failing to live up to them perfectly.
If I said “may you be enlightened with a relationship with reason and logic that frees you from the bonds of superstitious religion and nonsensical beliefs in God and Jesus,” you would likely perceive that as arrogant and insulting. Such a statement, however, is no less arrogant and insulting that what you write above.
Lemme see if I’ve got this right: We are all created by God. We are all sinners. Therefore, God created sinners. And if we don’t ask him to forgive us for creating us this way, he’ll punish us for eternity. Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God require the blood sacrifice of his son 2000 yrs ago in order to forgive me of his mistake?
Hello Austin, has anyone ever got paid for a job that hasnt been completed? Faith brings proof itself when the person decides to believe. The wages of faith is proof, after salvation.
Faith is like the airwaves, they are not seen but the result is an audio/ video resulting in some sort of output display or otherwise. I hope this is making some sense. When a cake is made it cannot be called a cake until its baked. It goes through a serious of processes before it gets to the point of being eaten as a cake.
Traditional Christianity is labelled according to the person or group that started it or founded it.
THEREFORE, Christianity is faith held and nourished belief of certain people or persons who truely believe in God as the Father and Jesus Christ as the Son and the Holy Spirit. A REAL Christian believes ONLY in these three person God, you know the TRINITY. The real christian listens only to the voice of God (any one of the Three) and sticks to the rules of what the Bible has laid down. Or shall I say the Laws, mainly the ten commandments are the only laws that the REAL is bound by and they are of no meaning to the one who does not break them. Every one is a sinner, sure, but Born Again Christians as I tried to explain in previous comments is spiritually born again person (I know some might not quite comprehand this, but it is there as sure as I am typing these words in this comment just as much as there is airwaves. Only people with at least some general science and/or physics backround can understand this phenomena. The lay person cannot understand it BUT the AIRWAVES exist and ARE THERE. So is Spiritual Rebirth, like the airwaves is there just for those i.e. who trust in God and tune in to that Godly Spiritual realm. They try to tune in as close as they can get to 100% and put their life solely into His hands.
Oh how I love the athiest who was not born an athiest, but someone in his life blinded him by misusing some religious twisted doctrine, which in itself proved to be contradictory to itself. Wow what a mouthfull. I love you men and women (self made Athiests) I will pray for you till the end. We, including myself could do with some prayer at some time or other. May God Bless you and keep you all safe and in good health, in prosperity and all the good thing that come with HIS GRACE!.
Charlie Borg
Yes.
If you have proof, you don’t need faith.
Christianity has changed tremendously since its earliest days — even among those who call themselves “traditional.”
That word doesn’t appear in the Bible.
Of course, those rules have to be intepreted.
Everyone is born an atheist; some just stop for a while.
Well said Austin. I live in India and can see the mischief of the missionaries spreading like cancer everywhere. It is a multi billion dollor business of conversion. Everybody in it is only for the sake of money and it has nothing to do with what people in the west want to believe as “helping the poor”. India has since ages been a tolerant society because of its Hindu ethos of tolerance and acceptance of all faiths. But with billions of dollors being poured to exploit the poor in the name of christianity and by spreading hatred towards other religions, the country is being forced towards intolerance and hatred.
I sincerely hope people in the west understand that one cannot buy people’s soul with money and stop abetting this wretched business of religious conversion.
Surprisingly, I, being a Christian minister agree with many of the points of the article. However, I do believe that there are good evangelistic efforts that go unnoticed. You referenced over 400,000 (i hope I got that right) mission groups in your article but you drew a conclusion about all 400,000 by closely examining a hand picked few that suited your purpose. I do understand your position and your argument and I would support you in the attack on these groups as they do not support what the Bible teaches. However, for all of the people who are using this blog as a means to try to convert a person to either side, may I remind you that faith is not grounded in fact that is why it is called faith, but atheist do have faith, faith that they are right, but just as me they can use not earthly logic or facts to definitively prove it.
For all the Christians who are irritated by the comments on this site or by the article itself I would like to remind you of the words of 1 Corinthians 1:18-19.
Thank You
Jason Ray
Jason,
That which is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. It takes no more “faith” to not believe in Yahweh than it does to not believe in Thor, Zeus, Asherah, Mithras, Vishnu, Apollo, or Jupiter.
Also, Jason, having formerly been a fundamentalist Christian, I get a good chuckle out of your chosen Bible verse. It’s just another one of the many that demean the value of human intelligence.
The Bible wants you stupid. It’s easier to indoctrinate you that way.
But for future reference, rather than just say “it’s all about faith”, I suggest you come up with a proper response as required per 1 Peter 3:15.
There is NO Christian missionary work that does any real good. The truest love for one’s fellow man, is without strings. Trying to “harvest souls” is an agenda that does more harm than good. The truest charity is that without hidden agendas. Ask Bill Gates, an admitted atheist. He’s given BILLIONS, with his foundation, with NO STRINGS whatsoever, That is the true spirit of giving.
What missionaries did to our own Native Americans, in the name of Christianity was unconscionable. What damage Catholicism is doing to Africa’s AIDS epidemic is unforgivable.
Don’t tell me about Christian charity! It’s a bunch of hogwash! Until they do the works with NO AGENDAS and not pushing their brand of religion down people’s throats, they are no better than con men.
They are all “Liars for Jesus”. That is not charitable at all. It’s a scam. The carrot is “we’re doing good in the lord’s name”. The stick is the indoctrination into the dogma, any way they can. Some altruism! Pious hyppocrites all
It would have been a much greater service to humanity if that nun in India had passed out birth control rather than denying and denigrating the use of birth control. It is unfortunate that a large number of people revere the work of Theresa rather than condemning her for subjecting innocent children to a life of poverty and misery.
The comments of the Christian posters put me in mind of “The no true Scotsman” idea.
Regarding Mother Teresa…
Here’s a section from Penn & Teller’s Bullsh*t series, called “Holier Than thou” which specifically debunks Mother Teresa; It features Christopher Hitchens, author of the critical “The Missionary Position”.
(copy/paste the bracketed link contents)
[www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIZMmAhsAcA]
OR…
for a much more in depth 3 part examination by Hitchens:
Part 1:
[www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WQ0i3nCx60&feature=related]
The problem is that too many influential “Christians” don’t care a bit about the message of Jesus. They’re too blinded by their worship of the figure himself to be bothered with trivia like that. Consequently, they’ll say and do anything to promote Jesus-Brand Religion…and they’ll justify it by saying they’re spreading the Gospel and making converts.
Hogwash. Jesus himself told his apostles that if a house or town would not receive them, they should simply shake the dust from their feet and move on. Of course, he also told his followers to do their good works anonymously and to pray in private rather than making a public show of it, so what did he know?
If Jesus saw the people who today call themselves his followers, he would condemn them as he did the Pharisees. After all, that’s all they are. They give lip service to his teachings, but all they really want is to brag about how good and holy they are. Be sure, their sins will find them out….
Reading the comments from religious fundamentalists and evangelicals reflects how narcissistic, self-absorbed and extraordinarily insular people can be when their worldview becomes so unimaginative, dogmatic,delusional and extremely myopic.
They are effectively saying that in this incredibly immemse universe, which all of us have just a infintesimal personal experience with; where time-space contraints(billions of light years) are almost beyond human comprehension; that this same completely unknowable universe revolves around the transitory beliefs of one religious faith on one terrestially habitable planet and that they alone are holders of”the truth”
And they say that atheists and agnostics are arrogant?!
It is sad and scary actually how so many can let their minds be so limited and voluntarily deluded with such utter hubris and irrational nonsense.
My family members in Cambodia have had this same experience with Christian missionaries. If you want help, you have to pray to their god.
The idea that we are condemned for all time for the “sin” of knowledge, but we are redeemed because we nailed up some guy as a scapegoat, is ludicrous. At least Odin sacrificed himself, rather than making others do it and then hating on them for it.
I also have “faith” that there is no Santa Claus.
The Christian posters, seem to think that atheists have never read the bible, and therefore don’t understand it.
Most atheists have not only read the bible, but many other books about religions, philosophy, history, etc. Most came to atheism, BECAUSE they had a wide range of information from which to reach a decision.
charlie borg (8). I have at least some background in general science/physics (advanced degrees, and over 50 years teaching, research, and industrial experience, in both geology and geophysics), but I have to admit that I fail to understand that an audio/video resulting from some sort of output display or otherwise is the result of invisible airwaves. I am sorry to have to inform you, but AIRWAVES of the type you mention are NOT THERE; they DO NOT EXIST. You are talking about electromagnetic waves. They have no necessary involvement with air, except in the case you mention, they propogate through it. Makes me a little skeptical of your scientific background.
“But it is there……as sure as there is airwaves.” Your airwaves do not exist; where does that leave your “as sure as”?
I maintain that I was not born an atheist. First one must be introduced to the concept of a god before one can decide it’s a delusion. I believe I was not even aware of the concept until later in my first decade, although I couldn’t tell you specifically when.
So you think you were born a theist?
Atheism doesn’t require thinking that gods are a delusion. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods.
Everyone who is unaware of gods must necessarily lack belief in gods. They aren’t theists. Ergo, they must be a-theists.
And then there’s Pat Condell, regarding…
“Children of a stupid god”:
[youtube.com/watch?v=rEtfdzNAE74&feature=channel_page]
I’m always a bit confused as to why advocates of religion employ scorecard arguments.
As I see it, scorecard arguments, by their very nature, are damaging to religious ideas. The problem with making a scorecard argument (ie, religion/religious people make things better in this world) is that it transgresses a fundamental principle of religions.
Religions in general, and certainly Christianity and Islam in particular, have one central idea in common; the reduction in importance of this world/reality. In afterlife-centred religions, this world is nothing more than a “vale of tears”, a corrupt, debased parody of the prelapsarian perfection it was supposed to be.
This world is to be endured, its hardships are to be weathered, and the only important thing is to hold strong to the correct beliefs in the face of all temptations to abandon them.
Once you’ve managed that, after you die you get to go to the REAL life, which will be perfect, will last forever and which you will have earnt by your steadfastness in this world.
This is hardly a fringe idea. It’s well represented in the Bible and Qur’an, and you certainly hear it expressed often enough by religious apologists, and by commenters on this site (including from the passive-aggressive “you may be an atheist now but my God will fuck you up after you die, so HA! variety).
So, then, the problem with scorecard arguments from the religious perspective is that they re-prioritise this world.
By placing so much importance on improving conditions in this world, the very arguments themselves speak against this central principle of afterlife-centric religions.
When believers make this argument, they are implicitly acknowledging that viewing this world as a vale of tears to be merely endured is unconscionable and inhumane.
In fact, when believers DO put their money where there mouths are, like when parents let their kids die from easily-treatable illnesses because they think that’s what their god wants, even other theists think they’re crazy.
From an atheist and naturalist perspective, on the other hand, the scorecard becomes more important. If this world is the only one we will ever know, if this life is all we will ever have (and there’s no good reason to doubt that) then it’s very important to do whatever we can to improve it. This ONLY makes sense from a naturalistic and humanist perspective.
If this world is merely a vale of tears to be endured, then we should all act like Mother Teresa and let people die slowly in unbearable suffering. After all, that’s what this world is for. But if there IS no afterlife, if this is the only world we know, then we should work together to help each other in THIS world.
For the life of me I can’t figure out what Charlie Borg is talking about. And atheists not born as atheists? Huh? Then what were they born as….Christians, Hindus, Muslims, or Buddhists….?
I bet missionaries who use their resources as best they can to help the poor without any strings attached (are their any?) would have a pretty good rate of conversion just from sharing their faith with whatever percentage of their beneficiaries were curious to know more about the religion of such a generous person.
@Dean:
Are you serious? Of course there are strings attached. Show me one religious mission that does not have conversion at its heart. There are always strings attached. By the way, no one converts to a religion just because someone is nice or helpful to them! Your statement belies itself. Conversion is the name of the game. No matter what!
Here’s your original comment, edited for clarity:
I bet missionaries who use their resources as best they can to help the poor without any strings attached (are their any?) WOULD HAVE A PRETTY GOOD RATE OF CONVERSION just FROM SHARING THEIR FAITH with whatever percentage of their beneficiaries were CURIOUS TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE RELIGION of such a generous person.
Voila! Strings attached galore! See my comment (14) for more details on the subject.
Jules wrote:
How can there be an opposite to a thing that doesn’t exist? Theism did not exist to me until someone told me they believed a god created the universe. The moment I understood what they meant and disagreed I became an atheist. I think that might have happened somewhere around 7,8,9ish.
Yes I was without a god, you are technically correct. I was defining theist/atheist as the cultural label we use to identify with each other.
That’s atheism.
Atheist is the label for anyone lacking belief in gods.
I did not identify myself as an atheist until someone told me about theism, regardless of how you classified me. . Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter how you label me. My label for myself while interacting with the world is the only one that matters. By your definition I was an atheist. But I’m not speaking as you, I’m speaking as me and I was not aware of theism, so I could not be a-theist.
Noting that you were an atheist isn’t “me labeling” you any more than noting that you were human is “me labeling” you. Either the definition applies or it does not.
By that “logic,” no terms that accurately apply to you “matter” unless you personally decide to use them. This is false. Lots of terms accurately apply to us whether we know it or not and whether we like it or not. Some matter regardless of whether we realize or approve. Some matter only in particular contexts. Some matter only when we choose to make an issue of it.
It’s not “my” definition, it’s the standard definition. The fact that you were unaware of how the term is defined doesn’t suddenly make it “my” definition.
The definition of atheism does not require that one be aware of theism in order to be an atheist.
Christians do what they do because they are crooks, suckers, and lazy cowards like everyone else.
Tonight, Nightline had a segment on these two yahoos for Jesus that are trekking the far corners of the earth to deliver the gospel and convert those who wouldn’t have heard the “good news” otherwise. They say they are doing god’s work. I find this disgusting to say the least.
I’m beginning to think these types are not only mentally unbalanced, but some kind of religious perverts. Yes, there can be perversion, even regarding religious zealotry.
I believe these people are actually ill, from fanaticism. Just take another look at the “Jesus Camp” video, that is still floating around, probably at You Tube.
Whereas Xtianity derived from Judaism, I find it it interesting that they don’t follow tzedakah very well. Charity should be given anonymously, and received anonymously. This is the highest level(next to giving someone independence through charity). Most make it a point to draw attention to their charity work, as well as the recipients. Just another example of Xtian narcissism.
BEX said: “how can there be an opposite to something that does not exist.” This question shows the root of your misunderstanding. Belief in gods, does exist. An atheist is someone who lacks it, weather by concious decision or lack of knowlege makes no difference. Also, do you really think that it’s a good idea to assign arbitrary meanings for the labels that you place on yourself? If we all started doing that it would be really confusing. You seem to be emotionally attached to your position and that never helps.
A person I know has learned language teaching methodology, and his wife very basic birthing care, in order to “Trojan Horse” their evangelical Christianity into Indonesia, Egypt, and atheist Australia.
While this person is no doubt somewhat interested in the ruse, it is the religious message that consumes his life. His wife is so bad at her “job” that their first child was malnourished by them for the first 6 months of his life, to the point where it has probably affected his long term height and mental development. He had literally gained only a few pounds from his birth weight at that point, which should be enough to alarm even a dopey father, let alone a new mother whose job is allegedly GIVING ADVICE TO NEW MOTHERS.
When people ask “what harm does evangelising do?”, I can only think, in the case of this malnourished child, that we’ll never really know. But I know what it did to a brother and sister I know. She is a simpleton, whose life view is seen through a very narrow Christian window. He is a bitter atheist who hates his parents for the education they didn’t give him, and the indoctrination which they did. When evangelism takes, it ruins lives. When it is rejected, it ruins lives.
It all gets back to the “but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion” quote.
The very God you deny exists still loves you!
Hi my friend,
Talking about logic, here is a very simple down to earth example. Tell me whether the following is fallacious or not.
“If I walk into a room and notice a very nice well designed watch on a counter, it follows someone intelligent must have put it there. Similarly when looking at this beautiful universe, does not it make sense that some intelligent being must have somehow managed to create it?”
Show me your logic to the above statement.
This is an argument from analogy and it only works if a “watch” is sufficiently like a “universe” to make a comparison. Unfortunately, they are not. We have lots of knowledge about watches, time pieces, and human artifacts to make a conclusion about its origin; we have experience with only one universe and not enough information to compare a “designed” to a “non-designed” universe.
If humans landed on a distant planet, stepped of, and picked up an object, how would they distinguish between a plain non-designed rock and a designed, alien artifact? Designed artifacts have characteristics which separate them from natural, non-designed objects. Once you understand what they are, then you’ll understand how well a clock compares to a universe.
hi Mr. Cline,
Just because you don’t have proof of something does not mean that something was not designed.
THow do you know natural objects are non-designed?The most reasonalbe position one could hold would be that you don’t know exactly where the universe come from. Because the questions you asked to decide about a watch as being a design don’t have readily available answers for you to decide on the the universe. Therefore you don’t have any evidence to accept or refute the fact that this universe was designed or whether it was not designed. I agree with that reasoning. But if we go a bit further by analyzing Plato, we can come up with a much more accurate resolution when considering ontological category of being og the universe with Plato’s theory of idea. Follow along.
If we remember Plato very well, he said that everything that is or that will ever be comes from a unique idea. The whole universe is the product of an idea according to Plato’s phylosophy. An idea can absolutely not derive from itself or from an emptyness or the nulle , it must have come from something beyond the object itself.
The whole universe is the product of an idea. That idea of the universe must have come from an intelligent mind only. If an idea is attribute of the Mind, The universe comes from an idea, it follows that the universe as natural as it is is product of the mind.
Otherwise we would have to attribute the credit to the universe itself and say that it is so smart to originate from itself.
I conclude that an intelligent mind must have fully thought of the idea for the universe to Be and to exist.
What do you think?
True, but the burden is yours to demonstrate that the universe was designed.
Because we see clear differences between them and things we design.
If you are unable to support your claims, that reason enough to reject them.
And why should we believe this?
Prove it.
I think you have provided neither evidence for your empirical assertions nor reasoning to support your conclusions. Unless and until you do, your position must be dismissed.