i think it would be logical to believe in ghosts if youre an atheist

Not at all. It's contradicting in reasoning on why someone would not believe in a god, but would believe in ghosts. Not to say an atheist can't...but, they're being hypocritical on a likely number of reasons as to why they believe in one and not the other.

Not at all. It's contradicting in reasoning on why someone would not believe in a god, but would believe in ghosts. Not to say an atheist can't...but, they're being hypocritical on a likely number of reasons as to why they believe in one and not the other.

No it isn't. Lots of people can reasonably and have reasonably believed the ''evidence'' they capture, such as film, photo and recordings are evident of ''spirits'' or whatever they are.

Lots of people can reasonably and have reasonably believed the ''evidence'' they capture

Evidence which is just as non-replicable and up to interpretation as belief in ancient books.

Let's go over some of the commonly mentioned points for people believing in ghosts.

1) A "presence" can sometimes be felt.
2) Concept of a soul or some nonphysical part of someone continuing after death.
3) Supernatural/weird acts.
4) Seeing someone who isn't there or who died.
5) Hearing voices.

Out of these 5, which are common to religion (specifically those with a god?)

All of them. The presence of said god, the idea of an afterlife, actions taken by said god, hallucinations/dead prophets (saints) and being spoken to...

There is still no evidence for them that is any better than what religion can provide for a god. Personal testimonies, "miracles" or sheer coincidence, rituals such as prayer or sacrifice...are all just as unsubstantiated as blurry photos, sensing of presences, personal stories of things moving or happening, hallucinations...etc.

1) A "presence" can sometimes be felt.
2) Concept of a soul or some nonphysical part of someone continuing after death.
3) Supernatural/weird acts.
4) Seeing someone who isn't there or who died.
5) Hearing voices.

Out of these 5, which are common to religion (specifically those with a god?)

All of them. The presence of said god, the idea of an afterlife, actions taken by said god, hallucinations/dead prophets (saints) and being spoken to...

This is but one angle on ''ghosts'' or whatever they are. Lots of people believe in them, but not in God, and they don't link God into the process. They believe for all sorts of reasons, that they are either emotional remnants (stone taps and such), electrical forces, and the like. There doesn't need to be a God or any higher power in the equation.

All of them. The presence of said god, the idea of an afterlife, actions taken by said god, hallucinations/dead prophets (saints) and being spoken to...

There is still no evidence for them that is any better than what religion can provide for a god. Personal testimonies, "miracles" or sheer coincidence, rituals such as prayer or sacrifice...are all just as unsubstantiated as blurry photos, sensing of presences, personal stories of things moving or happening, hallucinations...etc.

Those 5 as stated, are a pretty narrow range of the beliefs and theories on ghosts.

There doesn't need to be a God or any higher power in the equation.

I know there doesn't need to be. I was pointing out how the reasoning people use for existence of a god is almost exactly the same as the most common arguments for the existence of ghosts.

Those 5 as stated, are a pretty narrow range of the beliefs and theories on ghosts.

Really? Because one or more of those 5 account for nearly every person I've heard who believed in ghosts.

Lots of people believe in them, but not in God, and they don't link God into the process.

but they all link a afterlife to ghosts right?
and a afterlife is a creation of religion right?
...

They believe for all sorts of reasons, that they are either emotional remnants (stone taps and such), electrical forces, and the like.

those are evidence of there being no ghosts.
emotional remnant or any other mental disorder is for that person only not being real for the rest.
electrical forces... well said enough. electrical.

but they all link a afterlife to ghosts right?
and a afterlife is a creation of religion right?

Errr....no? I know serious people who believe in ghosts but not an afterlife. As mentioned, ''ghosts'' to those people are not souls.

those are evidence of there being no ghosts.
emotional remnant or any other mental disorder is for that person only not being real for the rest.
electrical forces... well said enough. electrical.

Read above.

No it isn't. Lots of people can reasonably and have reasonably believed the ''evidence'' they capture, such as film, photo and recordings are evident of ''spirits'' or whatever they are.

often such evidence is poorly examined and the result of confirmation bias. This would not support a well reasoned position.

emotional remnant or any other mental disorder is for that person only not being real for the rest.

Emotional remnants isn't referring to a psychological disorder but the belief that emotions can be left behind in places. A bit like how bad gas leaves behind a lingering odor. This is also known as psychic impressions.

"How Not to be a Paranormal Investigator" - TAM 2012

often such evidence is poorly examined and the result of confirmation bias. This would not support a well reasoned position.

Often. But doesn't science teach us to be open minded? The majority of cases are easily explained, but many still perplex.

Often. But doesn't science teach us to be open minded?

Here's where religious/supernatural nuts like to attack science from. Science is open-minded, but it's also not just going to accept any random crap someone says without something to back it up either.

When someone claims to have seen a ghost, but has no picture (or said picture is blurry and can be anything) then there isn't much reason to believe them.

Then you have to look at how many people report these sorts of things and if they can be replicated.

If ghosts were real, don't you think they would have found some solid evidence for them by now? Claims of haunted houses can be investigated and they are, but what shows up? Nothing, or some other explanation for what someone thought was the ghost.

but many still perplex.

The only real perplexing thing is that there's no immediate answer to explain it since it can't be repeated and there were only a few witnesses. Or sheer coincidence which gain a lot of attention.