I think both positions are nutty (obviously based on my clearly biased question of the day) :P .
But I find it odder that society in general thinks it is nuttier to believe one has actually seen (or talked to or talked with) a ghost than to simply believe in them based on "hearsay"/third party accounts/fuzzy indistinct photos (which are notoriously easy to make indistinct even without trying).
I agree with Brynn's last sentance actually, that in general it is more reliable to believe based on personal observation than upon hearsay...yet most people that believe in ghosts have never seen one. Even direct observation however isn't perfectly reliable due to clearly documented cases of people with mental disorders clearly seeing things/people/imaginary pink elephants/whatever.
And, if the question wasn't obviously seen as a repetitive coffee theme, the situation is of course a metaphor for belief in any metaphysical entity without direct observation/conversation with said entity...which perhaps 90% of the human population is prone to do.
Of course you are all bright people and see that the question is actually "Is it nuttier to believe in god because he apeared to you in a flaming bush? or is it nuttier to believe in him based on an old nutter coming down from a hill with a bunch of new laws supposed dictated to him by a burning bush."
90% of humans, and most of this board are prone to believing an old nutbag with an agenda...that bothers me.