Changes

In his book ''The End of Faith'', Harris wrote: “Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”.<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com">[http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2011/06/sam-harris-on-killing-people-for-what.html Sam Harris on Killing People for What they Believe] by Victor Reppert</ref>  Harris was criticized by [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Victor Reppert and others for his promotion of the idea that killing people for thought crimes is morally acceptable.<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com"/><ref name="voxday.blogspot.com">[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/10/sam-harris-is-still-genocidal-maniac.html Sam Harris: genocidal maniac or suicidal logician?] by [[Vox Day]], October 13, 2014</ref><ref>Madeleine Bunting, "[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/may/07/comment.religion The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it]," The Guardian, May 7, 2007</ref>

In his book ''The End of Faith'', Harris wrote: “Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”.<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com">[http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2011/06/sam-harris-on-killing-people-for-what.html Sam Harris on Killing People for What they Believe] by Victor Reppert</ref>  Harris was criticized by [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Victor Reppert and others for his promotion of the idea that killing people for thought crimes is morally acceptable.<ref name="dangerousidea.blogspot.com"/><ref name="voxday.blogspot.com">[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/10/sam-harris-is-still-genocidal-maniac.html Sam Harris: genocidal maniac or suicidal logician?] by [[Vox Day]], October 13, 2014</ref><ref>Madeleine Bunting, "[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/may/07/comment.religion The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it]," The Guardian, May 7, 2007</ref>

 

[[Vox Day|Theodore Beale]] wrote in response to Harris defending his statement:

Theodore Beale wrote in response to Harris defending his statement:

{{cquote|[http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation whining] about the fact that people are still actively holding him accountable for the clear and obvious meaning of his written words, and he is still attempting to shade the truth while doing so.

{{cquote|[http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation whining] about the fact that people are still actively holding him accountable for the clear and obvious meaning of his written words, and he is still attempting to shade the truth while doing so.

:''"I know one thing to a moral certainty, however: Both [[Glenn Greenwald|Greenwald]] and [[Reza Aslan|Aslan]] know that those words do not mean what they appear to mean. Given the amount of correspondence we’ve had on these topics, and given that I have repeatedly bored audiences by clarifying that statement (in response to this kind of treatment), the chance that either writer thinks he is exposing the truth about my views—or that I’m really a “genocidal fascist maniac”—is zero. Aslan and Greenwald—a famous “scholar” and a famous “journalist”—are engaged in a campaign of pure defamation. They are consciously misleading their readers and increasing my security concerns in the process."''

:''"I know one thing to a moral certainty, however: Both [[Glenn Greenwald|Greenwald]] and [[Reza Aslan|Aslan]] know that those words do not mean what they appear to mean. Given the amount of correspondence we’ve had on these topics, and given that I have repeatedly bored audiences by clarifying that statement (in response to this kind of treatment), the chance that either writer thinks he is exposing the truth about my views—or that I’m really a “genocidal fascist maniac”—is zero. Aslan and Greenwald—a famous “scholar” and a famous “journalist”—are engaged in a campaign of pure defamation. They are consciously misleading their readers and increasing my security concerns in the process."''

What a load of utter codswollop. Sam Harris clearly and openly and unmistakably wrote that it MAY be ethical to kill people for believing dangerous beliefs. Not for doing anything, not for harming anyone, but for simply BELIEVING CERTAIN BELIEFS. His repeated "clarifications" and obfuscations don't change that established fact and he has never recanted his statement. Nor, I note, has he ever come right out and declared specifically WHAT beliefs are so dangerous that it is ethical to kill people for nothing more than holding them.<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com">[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/10/sam-harris-is-still-genocidal-maniac.html Sam Harris: genocidal maniac or suicidal logician?] by [[Vox Day]], October 13, 2014</ref>}}

What a load of utter codswollop. Sam Harris clearly and openly and unmistakably wrote that it MAY be ethical to kill people for believing dangerous beliefs. Not for doing anything, not for harming anyone, but for simply BELIEVING CERTAIN BELIEFS. His repeated "clarifications" and obfuscations don't change that established fact and he has never recanted his statement. Nor, I note, has he ever come right out and declared specifically WHAT beliefs are so dangerous that it is ethical to kill people for nothing more than holding them.<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com">[https://voxday.net/2014/10/13/sam-harris-is-still-genocidal-maniac/ Sam Harris: genocidal maniac or suicidal logician?] by Vox Day, October 13, 2014</ref>}}

== Sam Harris on race and IQs ==

== Sam Harris on race and IQs ==