Conspiracy Theory - Science or Religion?

Science has proven itself more useful than faith because it relies on empiricism- nothing can be known unless there is sufficient evidence to prove it to be so.  Now, take conspiracy theories, which rely on facts.  Sure, the facts may be wrong, skewed, exaggerated, misinterpreted, but most of them are based on some part of history, some bizarre corner of human civilization that seems odd or unbelievable to most people. 

Events in the past are not as empirical or testable as hard science, so some history is taken on faith.  Look at a history book, and you have descriptions of events we believe to be true based on historical research, forming the most likely explanation.  Of course there are always anomalies, quirks, and oddities that history books fail to mention.  For some reason, mentioning these oddities becomes incongruous with the currently accepted view in education, thus conspiracy theories are merely a collection of bizarre, odd, and hard to believe data. 

The number of presidents and politicians involved in Freemasonry, Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones?  Don't worry about it.  The coincidences and conflicts of interest surrounding 9/11?  Who cares.  The Holocaust?  Just accept what you're told.    UFOs?  Don't touch the subject.  Of course belief plays a part, just as historians believe their view of history.  But does keeping pleasant facts and ignoring oddities make mainstream history any more truthful?  

Is a collection of unpleasant facts unscientific?

I've yet to see ANY conspiracy theory stand up to ANY amount of scrutiny. People come up with these elaborate conspiracies because they're bored, uneducated, too lazy to do a shred of research, racist, etc, etc, etc. I think a lot of it comes from people being disappointed with the way their lives have turned out and are looking for excitement or someone to blame or something.

Every single one of the "facts" that I've seen presented are either blatant lies, rumors, or worse. Most of which based on a staggering amount of ignorance and a stunning refusal to address the real facts.

If you can provide a real argument for your theory, with facts and evidence to support it AND address the mountains of facts and evidence against it, I'll listen.

Anyway, what I originally wanted to say is that I fail to see what your point was with the whole conspiracy theorist view of history rant. Your High School history textbook isn't going to go into the details of every little event. Shit, I remember entire wars being covered in a paragraph or less.