Scientology and the history of quackery

[MineralMan]

7. All religions are fictional in nature.

They are created, based on implausible stories that never actually happened and that have zero evidence of having happened.

So Scientology = Christianity = Islam = Hinduism, etc., in terms of validity.

Why should any of them be treated any differently from any other? Societies lend authority to their dominant religions.

So, priests can sexually molest children for centuries and go unpunished by society. Do those priests fear punishment in the hereafter? Apparently not. Why that is leads to some interesting conclusions, it seems to me.

What lacks evidence lacks credibility, in my opinion, so I will have none of any of it. I do not discriminate between "valid" and "invalid" religions. They are all the same, as far as I am concerned, and do not deserve to be treated with any seriousness at all, aside from their influence on a society. I don't mind tolerating them, as long as they do not interfere in the lives of anyone who does not follow them. When they do, however tolerance should disappear.

I can tolerate their adherents, as well, under the same circumstances as I tolerate the religions.