I assume you're asking whether it would be inconsistent, and that would depend on your reasons for not believing in gods. Merely to say "There are no gods, but there are ghosts" is not logically problematic, unless you think ghosts are gods. But if you say "If don't believe in gods because X" and X also implies that ghosts don't exist, then you have problem.

Many people are under the impression that people become atheists only because they're more rational than theists. That just isn't so, no matter how much atheists themselves wish it were so.

Sure. Ghosts and spirits were acknowledged as real before religions decided to purposfully squash the notion. I don't see it as having anything to do with being created by any god anymore than the earth being created by one.

Yes... though I would ask why. There are several nontheistic religions that still have spirits or other supernatural beliefs. Animism comes to mind.

Though I do have to ask. Why would you believe (or want to believe) that ghosts exist?

It is not logically consistent, but atheism isn't a religion or an organization or an ideology or a worldview -- so it's not forbidden to believe or not believe whatever. All atheism is a label, defining a person who does not believe in any gods. If you want to believe in ghosts, leprechauns, or time-traveling refrigerators, you can do that and still be an atheist.

You can believe anything you like , doesnt have to make any sense what a person believes ....can lead to a bit of ridicule though .

If you apply the same critical thinking to ghosts as you do to god(s) I'm not sure you can, at least I can't