I consider myself to be agnostic, meaning that I believe in the possibility of a correct God, or any other reasonable explanation to existence and life. However I have come to the conclusion that no matter how you look at religion, its main purpose is manipulation of the masses as well as to put power in the hands of few. For instance if no religion is correct than this proves my point, but even if a religion is proved right, it would nullify all other religions because they would contradict each other. Meaning if a religion is real all others are false. Now you will notice that everywhere humans are there is some sort of religion. If only a max of one religion can be true, why are there others? The answer is simply because people created, at least the majority, of religion to suit their needs and gain power to control the masses though fear of the vengeance of God or the Gods.
What is a "correct" God?
While some/many practioners of religion have, exclusively, intended to obtain personal power, I can't see how you have drawn the conclusion that the perfidy of some, impugns the whole.
I also have no clue, what-so-ever, as to how the argument that "no religion is "correct" proves your point...whatever that may be.
I sense that you perceive your post to be founded in logic, but I don't get it.
Religions are a set of conclusions about the meaning of life and the workings of the universe. Unfortunately most, if not all, have strayed from explaining life to insisting upon how life must be lead.
Like any human endeavor, the potential for the taint of individual avarice certainly exists and has been expressed in the world's religions.
You seem to scoff at the notion that there is only one "correct" religion (and whether or not you got there rationally, you would be right), but then you lay this premise as the foundation of religious thought.
That no religion is "correct" doesn't invalidate or minimize the virtues of them all.
Religions were created to explain life and the universe. You argument that they were created to subjugate the masses is reflective of your personal bias.
Without a doubt, individuals seized upon religions to amass personal power, but this, in no way, invalidates what may be the truth in these religions.
Your argument is no diffent than one that suggests that democracy is nothing more than a means for individuals to amass personal power and subjugate the massess...proven (as you would suggest) by the fact that bad actors have manipulated democratic institutions.
You need to give this a lot more thought.