Howyadoin,
YOUCH!!!
-Rav
P.S. Yeah, yeah, band name… I know… 
FWIW, The Entity (1981) was supposedly based on a true story of a ghost that sexually assaulted a woman. A quick google on the paranormal investigator’s names involved in the real case turned up this web page. I don’t believe in ghosts, poltergeists, vampires, werewolves, UFOs, Bigfoot, Nessie, or the Tidy Bowl man, but I’m always keeping an open mind on this stuff. Hell, I think it’d be cool to go to the supernatural zoo someday bang on the glass in the Vampire House. “Hey! Wake UP!!”
Therein lies the crux of this matter.
Elementary logic tells us that if you assume the existence of non-existent ghosts then the following are both tautologically true:
ALL Ghosts have harmed people
NO Ghost has ever harmed a person
(in fact, on assuming any contradiction, it follows that every statement is true, "the moon is made of green cheese, etc.)
I hope the argument above shows that this is not the case, it is indeed most pertinent.
WooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo!
I suppose that you could argue that the belief in ghosts has harmed people.
I worked with a woman on a limited income who was thrilled to find a house she could afford- her dream for a long time. It was large and elegant, with an enormous living room, lots of giant rooms on the ground floor, in fact, and comfortable bedrooms upstairs.
Then she found out it had been a funeral home, and was too afraid of ghosts to buy it.
So she and her children stayed in their crappy apartment instead.
I am amazed at how many people are attacking a perfectly legitimate general question! I think it is clear that the question of whether a ghost has harmed a person is in the context of the mythology of ghosts, and should be answered in the context of that mythology. Coming in and yelling “all mythology is irrelevant and you shouldn’t care about any of it!” is not productive. If someone asked you if superman can fly, would you angrily tell them he doesn’t exist? Or would you use your logical abilities to understand that they are speaking from a certain context, and answer appropriately?
…er?
From the OP
Doesn’t look to me like the question was asked “in the context of the mythology of ghosts”, but rather it presumed that ghosts exist.
Spot The Difference when someone asks “How does Superman fly?”
Even if ghosts aren’t true, couldn’t someone’s delusional belief/hallucination of paranormal activity be enough to cause them pyschological harm, if not subsequent physical damage?
Eg if they believed they saw a ghost, and were absolutely terrified, and became paranoid and stopped eating?
Ancient legends recount the execution of a local heretic. Several days after the execution, his spirit was seen by many in the area.
The evidence is sketchy at best, but, millions still believe the story.
What evidence does one need to justify belief?
How can science disprove the facts? Logic can only state that this was impossible, and yet this spirit influences billions to this day.
I am not advocating belief or the opposite in this story, just making a statement about the power of the mind.
I guess I missed the announcement that the “Don’t Be A Jerk” rule has been removed from the board.
There’s no harm in pointing there’s no scientific evidence, but it can be done in a polite manner. Calling someone an “ignorant ass” isn’t necessary.
If it weren’t for you meddling dopers, I’d have gotten away with my plan to steal ralph124s fortune!
There’s a ghost under my bed. Sometimes he takes a vacation and The Monster takes his place. This is why I can’t sleep with my leg hanging off the edge.
I’m scared.
Well the OP asks for documented cases.
Not for proof.
Unfortunatly it seems that by investigating ‘ghosts’ one becomes a kook.
No evidence from Kooks will be accepted.
Therefore no evidence of ghosts will be accepted.
The OP also asks for the motivation of ghosts.
Well the only possible answere to that is “don’t know”, maybe they are just mean.
Mr. Adams has answered questions about vampires in a rather tounge in cheek way but he seems to answere Jesus questions in a rather factual way.
Okay, I’ll bite…
What does “YMMV” mean and under what circumstances would you use this?
Confused in Cleveland,
Patty
YMMV =Your Mileage May Vary
in other words, “you may not get the same results I did”
Thnak you, Revtim!
Um… you’re all going to laugh at me but… (cowers)
I don’t believe in ghosts and I’m afraid of them anyway.
P.S.: I still sleep with two stuffed bunnies. Yes, I am over 21.
:rolleyes:
No, evidence from kooks will be accepted as long as it meets the same standards of quality as other scientific evidence. Unfortunately, kooks don’t seem to understand this simple concept.
Mr James Randi has made a career of examining kooks and their evidence, and has a million bucks for the first kook whose evidence stands up to proper scientific rigor. So far, his money is safe.
Don’t worry, I just turned 18 and also sleep with stuffed animals, for no readily visible reason. Plus I have a flock of flying kitties watching over me.
Just for the record: Nobody has called anybody an “ignorant ass” in this thread, at all.
Manny said:
And Rasta said:
But nobody has actually called anybody an “ignorant ass”.
Just wanted to clarify that.
This position has always taken me back a bit. I can certainly understand that if someone wants to state that ghosts exist, hurt people, shop at the Gap, etc., then they should be expected to provide proof of such.
So why is it that when the detractors come out and state emphatically that ghosts (or ETs, or Pauly Shore’s talent) DON’T exist, it isn’t up to them to prove that?
POSTER A: “Have ghosts ever hurt anyone?”
POSTERS B-Y: “Of course not. Ghosts don’t exist.” (“SDMB’s official stance on paranormal stuff”? How very…clique-ish. 
)
POSTER Z: “Cite?”
POSTERs B-Y: “We don’t have to prove they don’t exist. You have to prove they do.”
Well, I, POSTER DW, will challenge this one. I haven’t said ghosts exist, so I don’t have to prove that they do. However, several people (in this thread and others) have emphatically said that they do not. So, in keeping with SDMB tradition: CITE, PLEASE???
Note, however, that statements like “There is no proof of their existence”, and even “There has never been any documented evidence of their existence”* (which I would question to an extent) do not prove the claim that ghosts don’t exist*. They simply admit that we have no proof that they do. A thousand years ago we had no proof that the planet Pluto existed; yet I’m betting it was out there anyway.
IOW, absence of proof is not proof of absence.
I would say that the correct answer is “There is no proof that this has ever happened, as it would necessitate proof of the existence of ghosts in the first place, which we do not have. However, that doesn’t prove that it hasn’t happened; so in other words we have no answer to the question.” To the answer DDG gave above, I again would ask for a cite. But she also says:
Then, in my opinion, we cannot state that they do not.
Only thing is, that’s NOT the same as the anwer that was given (I know, I know; she said “pretty much”). The answer that was given was “They don’t exist, so they can’t.” How about this: if the OP had asked, “Has God ever harmed a person?”, what would the SDMB’s “official stance” on that question be?