Is Hell Real ?

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't say unnecessarily. I say inextricably linked. And it seems that balance provides the inextricable link. Lest you manage to show (not assert) balance not required for perfect choice.

Lots of waffle there. No much point in trying to address it only to get reams of word salad back.

You keep saying there has to be choice and there has to be balance. (Both completely baseless assertions mind)
Why not have a choice between existing and not-existing?

paulmurphyvec

Very funny ha ha

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Lots of waffle there. No much point in trying to address it only to get reams of word salad back.

And I'm inclined to think your dodging. But will setitle for lack of common ground on which to progress discussion.

If you don't see choice as necessitating balance between options presented, for instance, then there's no progression to be had.

Over and out.

kelly1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Are you a[wa]re of any arguments, evidence, data or reasons presented by this Jesus or anyone else that such a place exists?

No I can't offer an evidence that hell exists. It's purely a matter of faith.

Having said that, I believe in hell because Jesus said it exists and I think there is very good evidence that Jesus existed and that he rose from the dead and that his claim to be God is true.

BrokenArrows

harrylittle wrote: »

I saw a few vids on u tube of near death experiences about hell and it spooked the daylights out of me.

Consider this.

There are 7+ billion people on the planet and every day countless thousands experience death followed by resuscitation.

If there was an afterlife experienced by a near death scenario then you would expect there to be a level of consistency that every single person who died and was resuscitated would experience.

Instead you get the occasional experience reported by someone who essentially just remembers a dream they had while unconscious.

If you are to believe in heaven/hell that means you must also believe in a god and a devil.

Also you would think that if there was an afterlife controlled by an all powerful GOD then they would actually know whether you are actually dead or not and you wouldnt pass through to the other side until you were actually dead 100% and not able to be recovered.

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Infinite power cannot make a square circle. Nor can it make a straight stacked deck.

Then it's not infinite power.

If there are fundamental rules that cannot be broken, then the entity does not have infinite power.

A being of infinite power could make a square circle. Our inability to imagine such a thing does not affect their ability to do it.

oldrnwisr

kelly1 wrote: »

To the OP, yes, I very much believe so. Jesus taught about it and St Faustina was taken there:

http://www.divinemercysunday.com/vision.htm

https://aleteia.org/2013/10/25/3-absolutely-terrifying-visions-of-hell/

But I think you're asking this in the wrong forum. Of course atheists are going to deny the existence of hell!

So, what makes the Christian hell anymore believable than, say Jahannam, Naraka or Avici. If the Christian hell is real because Jesus teaches about then isn't Jahannam also real on the basis that Muhammad teaches about it?

kelly1 wrote: »

No I can't offer an evidence that hell exists. It's purely a matter of faith.

Having said that, I believe in hell because Jesus said it exists and I think there is very good evidence that Jesus existed and that he rose from the dead and that his claim to be God is true.

No, there isn't good evidence that Jesus existed. There is scant evidence that Jesus existed. To recap previous arguments on the matter, concerning Jesus there is:

• No writings by Jesus
• No contempraneous writings about Jesus
• No extrabiblical writings about Jesus that predate the gospels
• No mention of Jesus from scholars writing about the subject/region at the time (e.g. Philo of Alexandria, Justus Tiberius, Seneca the Younger)

Added to this, we have lots of reasons to reject the gospel accounts as reliable histories, including but not limited to:

• The gospels make little or no attempt to identify the sources they draw upon in writing their stories. (e.g. Luke mentions that he draws on sources but does not name them)
• The later gospel authors make no attempt to resolve contradictions with earlier works (e.g. Luke makes no attempt to reconcile his nativity narrative with Matthew's)
• The author does not place himself in the story.
• The gospels are written for the common man rather than the social and literary elite audience of Greek and Roman histories/biographies.
• The gospels contain far too many hagiographical elements to be historically reliable.
• There is no attempt to warn the reader that certain events or words may not be recorded clearly. None of the gospel authors make any attempt to identify where they speculate on content.
• The interdependence of the gospels makes them unlike the historical writings of the time.
• Unusual events disappear from the wider narrative. The aftermath of the graves opening in Matthew is not discussed in any other text.

Furthermore, the extrabiblical sources that do make some reference to Jesus are weak, at best, and even the earliest of these, Josephus' Antiquities is riddled with problems and comes after all of Paul's writings and the first three gospels. None of the extrabiblical sources for Jesus represent independent verification of his existence.

However, the real problem here is that all of this information was given to you the last time you made such a claim and you ran away from the argument:

kelly1 wrote: »

Oldrnwisr, again, I appreciate all the effort you've gone to in writing such long and well thought-out posts. And I thank others posters who have contributed positively to the discussion. But it's time for me to thrown in the towel and admit defeat.

To quality this, I mean I don't see how I can convince anyone of my claims and at the same time, I don't think I've had my claims destroyed. It's just a stalemate.

I might just come back with something, but this is a marker of sorts.

Thanks.

[Edit, oldrnwisr, I intend to go back and read your post]

So I don't really know why you're back here making the same baseless claims when you so spectacularly failed to defend them the last time.

nozzferrahhtoo

kelly1 wrote: »

No I can't offer an evidence that hell exists. It's purely a matter of faith.

Then, there is your answer to the OP Title and topic then.

Q: Is Hell real ?
A: We have absolutely no evidence to suggest it does.

Well that was simple wasn't it? But actually I would ADD to it like follows:

Q: Is Hell real ?
A: We have absolutely no evidence to suggest it does and SOME reasons to suggest it does not.

kelly1 wrote: »

Having said that, I believe in hell because Jesus said it exists and I think there is very good evidence that Jesus existed and that he rose from the dead and that his claim to be God is true.

Ok three claims there. Which would you like to substantiate first because I have seen NO substantiation for two of them, and VERY LITTLE substantiation for a third. So take your pick of one or more of them:

1) Evidence that Jesus existed.
2) Evidence that he (or any other person at that time) rose from death.
3) The claim he was a god is true.

Have at it. I am agog.

dr.fuzzenstein

Leaving aside if Hell is real or not, I have a real problem with the very basic premise of hell, eternal damnation.
There are so many problems with this. What about people of a different, or no, faith? What makes them wrong?
Will everyone in India and China go to hell for not saying their bedtime prayers?
What gives christians the right and the arrogance to say "I Alone Am Right!"?
The argument "Well, all the thousands of other religions are wrong" is not even an argument. That is straight down the toilet. I will not even entertain the thought.
Isn't God about forgiveness? And Jesus even more so, the old hippie?
For that reason alone I would reject eternal damnation as a concept out of hand.
It is merely a concept thought out to control the weak minded and with that you have critical mass, so the rest will run along with the idea.
It's the bogeyman of the church to scare people into submission.
I can only refer to my sig and say that my made up hogwash is at least as credible as yours (not you atheists ).

Hotblack Desiato

BrokenArrows wrote: »

There are 7+ billion people on the planet and every day countless thousands experience death followed by resuscitation.

They weren't dead though.

dr.fuzzenstein

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They weren't dead though.

According to this website, 107,602,707,791 people have ever lived as of 2011.
Of all of these, only one has ever been reported as coming back from the dead. And quite frankly, I find the story of his conception already hard to believe, so I would not class this as reliable evidence.
Yes, every single one of the 107,602,707,791 who have died, have stubbornly remained so, barring a zombie apocalypse in the near future.

Hell as a concept is great if you are an organisation striving for greater control of your subjects. Because it uses arguments based on "facts" that are absolutely unprovable and irrefutable (Tiger Rock) and threatens a punishment that is much of the same. I am ashamed that humans are gullible enough to buy it.
You can use it to make them do anything for you, it even goes as far as controlling their sex-life! Deciding for someone if they shall be permitted to have sex (mostly no), have a **** (erm, no) or be allowed to love someone with the same sexual organs (YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!!!) is the utlimate form of control. And the absolute nadir of passive aggressiveness is my personal opinion.

harrylittle

kelly1 wrote: »

No I can't offer an evidence that hell exists. It's purely a matter of faith.

There are lots of people on utub claiming hell is real. In a court case if you have two or more witnesses you would have enough sufficient evidence to win most cases . On utube you have hundreds of witnesses.

Gregk961

harrylittle wrote: »

There are lots of people on utub claiming hell is real. In a court case if you have two or more witnesses you would have enough sufficient evidence to win most cases . On utube you have hundreds of witnesses.

If you have two other witnesses saying the opposite that's enough to lose most cases. You have hundreds of people on youtube claiming hell isn't real.

Even by your own mind boggling logic this argument is rubbish.

Hotblack Desiato

harrylittle wrote: »

There are lots of people on utub claiming hell is real.

There's quite a few too claiming that the earth is flat.

In a court case if you have two or more witnesses you would have enough sufficient evidence to win most cases . On utube you have hundreds of witnesses.

But they have not a shred of credibility. So no.

jk23

Honestly when I was driving today I was just thinking to myself how mad you he whole situation of how people found themselves here,

we have no 100% sound theory as to how or what created the universe or what the purpose of life is.

When the lights go out when we die my own theory is we awake in another consciousness in a new body most probably in the future and the cycle continues... this may sound crazy but its the way I feel about it at the moment anyway!!

NIMAN

jk23 wrote: »

Honestly when I was driving today I was just thinking to myself how mad you he whole situation of how people found themselves here,

we have no 100% sound theory as to how or what created the universe or what the purpose of life is.

When the lights go out when we die my own theory is we awake in another consciousness in a new body most probably in the future and the cycle continues... this may sound crazy but its the way I feel about it at the moment anyway!!

Probably no crazier an idea of a Heaven as portrayed by the church.

Neon_Lights

Just to follow up on the Hell, Norway References
Hell[font=arial,sans-serif] is a post [/font][font=arial,sans-serif]town[/font][font=arial,sans-serif] with two post codes: 7517 for delivery route addresses and 7570 for post-office boxes. [/font][font=arial,sans-serif]Hell[/font][font=arial,sans-serif] currently has a grocery store, gas station, a fast food shop and a retirement home. [/font]

nozzferrahhtoo

jk23 wrote: »

we have no 100% sound theory as to how or what created the universe or what the purpose of life is.

That sentence assumes there IS a purpose of life in the first place. So you are kinda putting the cart before the horse on that one. Your first question should not be WHAT the purpose of life is, it should be whether there is any reason to even think there IS one in the first place. We have zero evidence at this time that there is.

jk23 wrote: »

When the lights go out when we die my own theory is we awake in another consciousness in a new body most probably in the future and the cycle continues... this may sound crazy but its the way I feel about it at the moment anyway!!

Well I do not think it is really "your own" theory given it has a name (reincarnation) and many many people subscribe to it. There is however absolutely ZERO evidence for it.

In fact we used to have one user who heavily subscribed to it, but he ran away in shame shortly after being called on it. He was asked for his BEST evidence that reincarnation was real. The very best case he could find and offer.

What did he come up with? A young girl who could speak a long dead language. Sounds impressive? Not very when you dig into it and find out that said girl had a father who studied that group of people and.... you guessed it..... their language.

Shortly after that was revealed, the user never posted on boards.ie again.

dr.fuzzenstein

Neon_Lights wrote: »

Just to follow up on the Hell, Norway References
Hell[font=arial,sans-serif] is a post [/font][font=arial,sans-serif]town[/font][font=arial,sans-serif] with two post codes: 7517 for delivery route addresses and 7570 for post-office boxes. [/font][font=arial,sans-serif]Hell[/font][font=arial,sans-serif] currently has a grocery store, gas station, a fast food shop and a retirement home. [/font]

Yes and it freezes over pretty much every winter

angryIreGamer

https://goo.gl/maps/4S2oyBcmudR2

antiskeptic

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Leaving aside if Hell is real or not, I have a real problem with the very basic premise of hell, eternal damnation.
There are so many problems with this. What about people of a different, or no, faith? What makes them wrong?
Will everyone in India and China go to hell for not saying their bedtime prayers?
What gives christians the right and the arrogance to say "I Alone Am Right!"?
The argument "Well, all the thousands of other religions are wrong" is not even an argument. That is straight down the toilet. I will not even entertain the thought.
Isn't God about forgiveness? And Jesus even more so, the old hippie?
For that reason alone I would reject eternal damnation as a concept out of hand.
It is merely a concept thought out to control the weak minded and with that you have critical mass, so the rest will run along with the idea.
It's the bogeyman of the church to scare people into submission.
I can only refer to my sig and say that my made up hogwash is at least as credible as yours (not you atheists ).

You could track and read my posts upstream. They deal with the rationale for Hell. You'd find, for instance that people of other faiths and none, have as much potential access to heaven or hell as a person of Christian religion.

It might resolve some of the problems you have with the "basic premise of Hell"

I'd warn however, that you need to accept the model of God presented (for the sake of discussion) rather than Dawkinsian one frequently put forward in A&A

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

people of other faiths and none, have as much potential access to heaven or hell as a person of Christian religion.

Thus making christian religion unnecessary? Superfluous? Might it be better to remove the complication of religion (think of all the horrors done in religions name) and let humanity try to sort the rest of it's problems?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd warn however, that you need to accept the model of God presented (for the sake of discussion) rather than Dawkinsian one frequently put forward in A&A

Even going by your model of god (for the sake of argument we are not supposing your/Dawkins version of God where the joy is the joy of submitting to a tyrant. We are supposing the joy a joy that would satisfy anyone.), the premise still doesn't make any sense.
Eternal punishment is equally opposite to eternal joy, but that doesn't make them equal to each other. From our point of view, the "choice" offered to us is clearly stacked in such a way to make it no choice (Would you rather €1000 or a kick to the groin). Going by your argument, there are people from 1000s of years ago, suffering eternally in hell. And they will do so forever. What purpose does that serve? It's eternal, so they can't learn from their mistakes, they can't improve themselves. They don't get anything out of it. The people they've wronged are long since in heaven and they don't get anything out of it. God can't get anything out of it. So what is it's purpose?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thus making christian religion unnecessary? Superfluous? Might it be better to remove the complication of religion (think of all the horrors done in religions name) and let humanity try to sort the rest of it's problems?

I don't suppose it's critical for a person's salvation. But there is far more to God than his final salvation. You have the car, now here's the manual.

Even going by your model of god (for the sake of argument we are not supposing your/Dawkins version of God where the joy is the joy of submitting to a tyrant. We are supposing the joy a joy that would satisfy anyone.), the premise still doesn't make any sense.
Eternal punishment is equally opposite to eternal joy, but that doesn't make them equal to each other.

That's a good way to put it. Equal and opposite.

From our point of view, the "choice" offered to us is clearly stacked in such a way to make it no choice (Would you rather €1000 or a kick to the groin).

For the purposes of discussion we are supposing sin attractive and goodness attractive. They ARE both attractive (even if the attraction appeals to different aspects of us). Otherwise we wouldn't partake of both.

Going by your argument, there are people from 1000s of years ago, suffering eternally in hell. And they will do so forever. What purpose does that serve? It's eternal, so they can't learn from their mistakes, they can't improve themselves. They don't get anything out of it. The people they've wronged are long since in heaven and they don't get anything out of it. God can't get anything out of it. So what is it's purpose?

What God gets out of it is having enabled people to determine their eternal destinations for themselves. To grant their hearts desire. That he would prefer had all plumped to be constructed from his characteristics is secodary to the primary need to let them determine their own constitution. He is satisfied with having acted fairly even if on a secondary level he is pained.*

It's less about who the occupants of hell have sinned against (that is more the mechanism by which they decide upon their eternal constitution). Rather, they obtain the constitution they plumped for: to consist of everything they are already that isn't made in the image and likeness of God.

I'm inclined to suppose that the restraining effect of a person being made with God characteristics once shorn from them, is what renderstwhile the person utterly ugly. The horror is already with in us, just tempered for now.

Similar, but opposite to the heavenbound, who will be stripped of everything which isn't in the image and likeness of God.

A case of thy will be done for all.


*It could well be that God's pain lasts up to the time when the person is stripped of his image. After that, they are no longer see persons as such (I've used the word creatures to differentiate them ). Rather, they are abominable so presumably no pain experienced by God as their plight. The only aspect of personhood connected with these creatures is the choice they made which had them constituted as they are now constituted. But the person no longer exists to be pitied. Nobody need pity pure evil. Not when it chose freely to be in that condition as opposed to the alternative

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

For the purposes of discussion we are supposing sin attractive and goodness attractive. They ARE both attractive (even if the attraction appeals to different aspects of us). Otherwise we wouldn't partake of both.

But sin is the act of making the choice. The thing you are choosing is still heaven or hell. Really, my analogy just changes to "Would you rather €1000 tomorrow, or €1 today and a kick to the groin tomorrow?" It's still stacked.
If you understand and accept the question as valid then there is only one reasonable choice. If you choose hell then you don't understand the question in which case your choice is meaningless. If you reject the validity of the question then you either get hell anyway (classical christian interpretation) or you are judged based on your other actions regardless. Either of which amounts to means no choice.
On every level, this amounts to no meaningful choice being made.

antiskeptic wrote: »

[those in hell] obtain the constitution they plumped for: to consist of everything they are already that isn't made in the image and likeness of God.

I'm inclined to suppose that the restraining effect of a person being made with God characteristics once shorn from them, is what renderstwhile the person utterly ugly. The horror is already with in us, just tempered for now.

Similar, but opposite to the heavenbound, who will be stripped of everything which isn't in the image and likeness of God.

A case of thy will be done for all.

So, in order to avoid the problem of a nonsensical eternal punishment that exists in standard christian interpretations, you have created a hell that is, to put it simply, existence without god or his aspects? And that the people there knowingly choose that?
If they choose that, then how is hell a bad thing? Everyone seemingly wants to be there. They aren't hurting anyone in heaven. The people in heaven want to be there and they don't effect anyone in hell. Everyone gets what they want, apparently.

harrylittle

Gregk961 wrote: »

If you have two other witnesses saying the opposite that's enough to lose most cases. You have hundreds of people on youtube claiming hell isn't real.

Even by your own mind boggling logic this argument is rubbish.

To be a credible witness they must have died for a few minutes. I have not come across such people on utube but if can you give me some names so that I can check there vids out.

dr.fuzzenstein

harrylittle wrote: »

To be a credible witness they must have died for a few minutes. I have not come across such people on utube but if can you give me some names so that I can check there vids out.

To be a credible witness all brain activity would have to have stopped.
You heart stopping isn't death.
And no one comes back from that. Even if your body is being kept alive, it's only good for donating organs.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But sin is the act of making the choice. The thing you are choosing is still heaven or hell.

Sin is the act (and action) of choosing in the direction evil. The thing you are choosing between is good and evil. These choices go into the "algorithm" which determines whether you end up saved or not.

(I say algorithm merely to avoid the simplistic conclusion that your good and evil choices are simply weighed up on a balance and whichever way the balance goes, you go. It's more complex than that)

Really, my analogy just changes to "Would you rather €1000 tomorrow, or €1 today and a kick to the groin tomorrow?" It's still stacked.

The mechanism of salvation/damnation plays out in a part of us which isn't considering eternal consequences. We aren't acting on the basis of our going to heaven or hell. We're acting on the basis of something more immediate: the benefits now, how the choice conforms to our value system, the level of pressure applied urging us in a direction we'd prefer not to go, whether we can live with the guilt, whether we prefer a clean conscience, etc.

It doesn't matter if you're a "believer" (i.e. not saved but believing in God/god). If your choice is for good because, for instance, you calculatingly think that will earn you points towards salvation then the algorithm notes the heart motivation behind it and the supposed good is assessed accordingly.

The balance lies in the forces behind the humdrum choices presented to us. Good and evil are the big players exerting their respective influences.

If you understand and accept the question as valid then there is only one reasonable choice. If you choose hell then you don't understand the question in which case your choice is meaningless. If you reject the validity of the question then you either get hell anyway (classical christian interpretation) or you are judged based on your other actions regardless. Either of which amounts to means no choice.
On every level, this amounts to no meaningful choice being made.

As I've said elsewhere, I fully expect there to be atheists, muslims, buddhists and the like "in heaven" (actually, a recreated earth, just without the brokenness). It doesn't matter what your position is on the question of hell if faced with the discussion on it. You can ignore it, you can persist in holding a Dawkinsian view of it, you can believe in it.

None of that necessarily has any impact on whether you end up there or not.

The algorithm considers the whole of your life - not just your intellectual musings on the subject of heaven and hell. It considers the, literally, hundreds and hundreds of ways every day in which you chose/think/act ... and desire to choose/think/act even when choosing/thinking/acting contrary to that desire.

It utilizes the things that happen to you for good and for ill and how you respond to those things.

Good and evil occupy those places. The devil, and God are in the detail


The algorithm, like I say, isn't looking to weigh up the good/bad choices and determine your destination accordingly. But rather than get into a discussion about the mechanism of salvation, I've hopefully said enough to highlight the decision coming from a much deeper place than intellectual evaluation.

It has to: otherwise a persons salvation would depend on the country they were born in, the intellectual ability they had, the religion they were brought up in or no. All of that is taken account of such that balance is achieved for all.

So, in order to avoid the problem of a nonsensical eternal punishment that exists in standard christian interpretations, you have created a hell that is, to put it simply, existence without god or his aspects? And that the people there knowingly choose that?

Believers are as prone to Dawkinsian-level caricatures as is Dawkins.

A theology can be stagnant - you take what you're told in your local church, accept it and work on that basis. Or you suppose there being no end to the digging you can do to refine and develop your understanding of the nature of God and how that works out in various ways.

The model of hell proposed is one which I think far better reflects the God being assumed for the sake of my discussion in this thread. A God who is indeed love, who is the very essence and source of that which is, in so far as there is a commonly held view, good.


I wouldn't say people knowingly choose Hell. The process of choice occurs deep within, even if we have some awareness that good and evil are present in ourselves and others. The choice posed to people is a veiled one - for to lay the full consequences of choice on the table would render choice impossible. Which you yourself appear to recognize.

But that's how choices go: we don't usually know the full consequences of our actions when we pick a direction to go in.

As ever, balance means that the person who comes to believe arrives at that place no more knowingly than the person who remains in disbelief.

If they choose that, then how is hell a bad thing?

Good observation. It isn't a bad thing. Consequences being delivered for a choice taken by a free willed being is a good thing. The consequences won't be enjoyed, and can be therefore considered bad. But only in the secondary sense. Primarily, choice is being upheld. Which is good.

"God is good" has a sobering side to it.

Everyone seemingly wants to be there. They aren't hurting anyone in heaven. The people in heaven want to be there and they don't effect anyone in hell. Everyone gets what they want, apparently.

Indeed. Whilst God wants that none would perish, this desire too, must take second place behind the primacy of choice.

dr.fuzzenstein

Wonderful, a theory as complicated as string theory and all wholly based on a premise for which there is not a shred of evidence.
All justified with "but we're telling you it's real!"
And now rewritten to suck in some poor Muslims and Atheists who had nothing to do with it in the first place.
And once again the question I keep asking which gets steadfastly ignored because there is no answer other than "because I'm right":

Why, oh WHY do Christians have the arrogance to say " this is the only true religion and the only true god"
I much prefer Shinto and Buddhism, give me the Norse gods any day or even his holiness the FSM.

Tell me that! I expected nothing more than deafening silence.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Yes, hell is real, and a distinct possibility for a great number of people, unless they repent sincerely. Your soul is eternal. An unrepentant sinner cannot enter into the joys of Heaven. An unrepentant sinner goes to hell, for all eternity.

dr.fuzzenstein

qwadb78ejp260i wrote: »

Yes, hell is real, and a distinct possibility for a great number of people, unless they repent sincerely. Your soul is eternal. An unrepentant sinner cannot enter into the joys of Heaven. An unrepentant sinner goes to hell, for all eternity.

My theory is, the idea of hell stems from our human idea of justice. We threaten people with hell to prevent them doing misdeeds or to steer their behavior to suit the prevalent social and religious climate.
It is also a wish for justice, because when someone commits a misdeed we don't like it to go unpunished, so we might feel a bit better when we think that person went to hell.
Once again, it is a question of faith and belief, but how do we know only Christianity holds The One Truth?
I like the idea of Shinto. There is no such thing as hell.

http://jinja.or.jp/modules/pico/index.php?content_id=14

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yomi

We might as well believe in the bogeyman.
Of course to some people the answer lies in blind, unquestioning faith, but that way lie the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and ISIS.
Because where there is a belief system, there is someone willing to exploit it for their own gains. Hence Churches.
And how many people have been killed by radical atheists compared to radical religious people?
Organised religion has been a dismal failure, because even the message is peace and love, you can trust people to pervert it and exploit it for their own gains, i.e. money and power.