If God was a ghost

If God(s) were/was a ghost (excuse me for condensing a possible plural into a singular), wouldn't opinions be different?

If I told you there was a ghost in my closet, where does the burden of proof lay? With me, I would hope. However, if I refuse to show you the closet-- or if I tell you that I do not have the key to open the door, you would most likely dismiss my claim. Rightly so, I must say.

Now, what is the difference between what I stated above and making the claim that God is real? I hear some claim atheism requires more faith than religion. I find such a claim to be untrue. Just like you not believing in my ghost, it is only logical to ask for proof, and upon recieving none(evidence and proof are very different), you take the opposite 'road'.

It's just that there's so much proof of God. You know, flagella and blood clotting and male nipples..

I understand your point, Genecosta, and I like your analogy, but believers are still going to give the same (brutely unscientific) answers they always do. God is apparent and obvious, he doesn't need proof, you can 'feel' him. Although if I ain't feeling him, it's cuz somethings wrong with me, not because they're imagining things.