Mainstream religion vs. other religion

Pacey says:

I know you couldn't wait for my insight on this issue.

At this point in my life, I have read and heard it all when it comes to rationalizing religion. All. Every rationale ever put forward by religious cognoscenti and lay-folk alike for the existence of the supernatural reduces towards essentially two (often blended) categories, 'faith' and 'gap-filling' logic. In this sense, all religions are similar in being nonsensical and unnecessary, with the details of their particular beliefs being the only manner in which to differentiate among them.

So why is, say, a belief in Scientology more ridiculous than, say, a belief in Catholicism?

My theory is that since Catholicism/Protestantism/Jesusism/ is so prevalent in western society it is easy to have such beliefs taken as being true simply because if their omnipresence. But, if someone were to convert to some religion (Scientology) that does not have centuries of social cache, it leads me to believe that the individual actually considered the "evidence" and evaluated the merit between religions enough to switch.

Thus, the secular Catholic only suffers from complacent passivity, but the Scientologist is actively moronic, making an informed decision on which irrational beliefs they give their money to.