What is a ghost then.? Or come to that any supernatural force. Are we supposed to believe that they exist as individuals separate from us.

If they aren't separate from us does that mean that they are only hallucinations,

 or ilusions crested by the mind? 

I always believed in Occam's razor, basically that you shouldn't proliferate entities, where they needn't necessarily exist. But i don't think that we do understand what does and doesn't exist. What i will say is that i don't believe that a being's appearance in a movie, like the Mummy or flesh-eating zombies somehow signifies that these things exist outside of the movie. What they really are, if they exist at all, is far more interesting.

It's commonly stated that if a propsition of a ghost or an entity is  rejected by someone, and then the rejection is disproved on any basis at all, then that effectively stills all scepticism. You hear that again and again, in one form or another from ardent believers, but it doesn't work. The burden of proof with regard to anything which is unlikely, can't be sidestepped like that. It remains with the person claiming it, not with anyone trying to discount it, even if they're wrong. It remains to be proved by the believer, and that has to be as true for a scientist as it does of a ghosthunter. 

I don't care if it's a long held belief, if there are only single pieces of evidence, which can't be qualified by views from different perspectives at the same time.

That isn't wholly a sceptic's argument. 

Some sceptics are willing to be convinced.

What it is , is a statement that anyone who says that a sceptic's arguments are all overridden because they're being merely sceptical, is nonsense.

That is part of what is required of an enquiring mind.

I'm sure that will offend somebody. Everbody is offended all too easily these days.