Question about "faith"

[HappySkeptic]

I think it's important to remember that, although ghosts aren't theorized by scientists, there are plenty ghost-like conjectures in science. For example, in the early days of neuron research, Cajal argued for the existence of dendritic spines, even though it was almost universally rejected as an artefact of staining techniques. He stood by his argument, and only with future developments in staining could the opposing artefact conjecture be falsified in support of the dendritic spines.

No, dendritic spines aren't similar to ghosts.  The first had tentative evidence for its existence, was postulated and was testable in-principle, and later shown to be the best hypothesis. It also wasn't an extraordinary claim, since it wasn't disallowed by current science.  Are you arguing that because science doesn't know all, and finds new ideas, that somehow that makes it scientific to postulate gods?

The bible-god that most Christians believe in has already been falsified. 

There are some liberal Christians or Deists that have an unfalsifiable idea of God.  Well, that's a nice story for them to believe in but why bother?  If the god doesn't do anything testable, what does it matter if one believes in it or not?  If the answer is "it makes them feel good", I would argue that there are other stories that could be substituted that could make them feel good as well (as the multitude of religions and philosophies have shown)