For me, I'd say it's an inconsistency because the existence of ghosts seems to automatically imply the existence of a soul, which in turn implies quite a great deal of things, most if not all of which are also seemingly denied concepts under hard atheism.

If you've already tossed the baby, why keep the bathwater? To mangle a metaphor.

Because babies require love and care, and bathwater is fun to splash in.

Well it was, 'til the baby pooped in it.

Dammit, I thought I ordered a non-pooping model.

I don't "believe" in athiesm. I just don't believe there's a god. Atheism is not, by definition, a religion. Proselytizing athiests fit a category well known in all belief systems -- wackos. The way I view it was best stated by Carl Sagen's wife after his death. Someone asked her, "Didn't he want to believe?" and she replied, "No. He wanted to know."

First and foremost, Happy Birthday Deena!!

I hope your day has been joyous and that it gets even better.

I used to claim to agnosticism, one more or less that basis. But as I went through a lot of soul-searching (so to speak, I guess) on that issue a few years back, I realized it was becoming less and less comfortable. Because while it might never be possible to *know* whether god exists, I *did* know on some level what I believed.

I went through a similar process, Brenda, but due to a single conversation with a friend, ended up Christian instead of atheist, although that statement is perhaps a bit simpler than reality. I mention this because I think it's interesting to see people take similar paths to different destinations.

Because I believe in Jesus and the Hebrew God does not mean that I don't believe in any others. For me, the whole thing related to ita's question:

What is the term for someone who believes in a god (any one, really) but doesn't worship them?

I don't know the best term, but this is where I was for years. I said I didn't know, even to myself. Perhaps I really didn't, but what I realized later was that the key was not that I didn't believe in God, but rather that I didn't believe in God as I had been taught. That is to say, God may or may not exist, but if God exists as a vengeful, patronizing twerp (connecting back to the conversation in Natter re: Job), then that is not a God I can follow.

Once I discovered a way to understand the Bible as a record of an imperfect understanding of a perfect God, created by imperfect people in a patriarchal society, the whole thing turned around for me. Now, I see the limitations in the Bible are of the people writing it, that God Herself does not have those flaws or limitations.

Studying the Bible, I see where the earlier word for God was plural, clearly neither masculine nor feminine, and I embrace that. When I see attributes of God that are clearly evil and petty, I feel comfortable saying that they are due to misunderstanding. It may be overly facile, but it works for me.

And now, I will finally shut up, at least for a while.

I can see believing in the supernatural in some definition without believing in god. Although you'd have to define both terms more specifically than we've (mostly) been doing here. Off the cuff, I'd say the omniscience/omnipotence are a harder sell for me than some lingering consciousness going bump in the night.

I need entertainment!

They fed us lunch from Shiok, and no one seems to need me to do any work right now, and staying alert seems to be on the not happening list.

I can see believing in the supernatural in some definition without believing in god. Although you'd have to define both terms more specifically than we've (mostly) been doing here.

I can see this too, I just find it contradictory in hard-line atheists, which I would think pull you out of the above category.

I guess when I was a kid/teenager, I was a hard atheist. I eventually grew out of it, because, well, it was kind of assholey. Now I guess I'm a soft atheist. Don't believe in God or gods but don't give a crap if other people do.