Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
We all know about Godwin's law, where the first person to invoke Nazi comparisons in an argument loses. We need a new one for the evolution/creationism dispute: first one to invoke Jeffrey Dahmer loses. The Texas creationists trying to screw up science education in that state are doing so. Donna Garner forwarded an email originally written by Kelly Coghlan, a Texas attorney and creationist, with the title "Jeffrey Dahmer believed in evolution." It included this claim:
Jeffrey Dahmer, one of America's most infamous serial killers who cannibalized more than 17 boys before being captured, gave an last interview with Dateline NBC nine months before his death, and he said the following about why he acted as he did: "If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there was nothing...." (Dateline NBC, The Final Interview, Nov. 29, 1994).
This is nothing but an ad hoc rationalization of his own behavior after being raised by a creationist chemist, Lionel Dahmer, and then allegedly converting to Christianity after getting caught and imprisoned. This kind of argument is just so idiotic. Somehow the hundreds of millions of people in the world who do not believe in eternal punishment manage not to kill and eat people every day. What a puzzle.
Politics
Comments
The easiest response to that is that Hitler thought it was christian duty to kill the jews... oops, brought up nazis. I guess I lose the arguement. Dammit.
Posted by: Strummer | February 8, 2009 9:30 AM
Ah yes, but did Jeffrey Dahmer believe in Adolf Hitler? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 8, 2009 9:42 AM
Somehow the hundreds of millions of people in the world who do not believe in eternal punishment manage not to kill and eat people every day.
Or pretty much any other particularly awful thing. You look at nonbelievers and their families, and from a National Enquirer perspective, they're just plain dull. Your cannibals, pedophiles, serial killers, terrorists, etc. (or even just people who are monumentally screwed up), tend to come from childhoods spent under the influence of that ole' time religion.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | February 8, 2009 9:54 AM
More importantly: Jeffrey Dahmer, one of America's most infamous serial killers who cannibalized more than 17 boys before being captured, WAS RAISED BY A CREATIONIST!!!
Posted by: Miguel | February 8, 2009 10:09 AM
The original Godwin's Law simply holds that for any prolonged discussion, the probability of a reference to Hitler approaches 100%.
That corollary which claims the first one to mention der Fuhrer loses the argument was almost certain coined by someone losing an argument to a person citing Hitler.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 8, 2009 10:25 AM
...almost certainly...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 8, 2009 10:28 AM
It's pretty obvious when dealing with creationists how woefully ignorant they are regarding science, its methodologies, and its findings and theories. They often make the mistake of conflating a descriptive explanation like evolution with a prescriptive argument; in this case a prescriptive argument too idiotic to repeat. The movie Expelled is now Exhibit A in regards to a primary example of this logical fallacy.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2009 10:29 AM
Every commenter thus far (maybe not Molly) is guilty of Poe1 or Poe2 -- especially Ed. A shameful display, really.
Molly: I grew up in an atheist home, so what's the explanation for me?
Posted by: kehrsam | February 8, 2009 10:29 AM
Well clearly it worked as you aren't out there eating people(I suspect).
Posted by: GH | February 8, 2009 10:39 AM
kersham - I assume you are referring to comments at or prior to 10:09 a.m. given Pierce's argument merely elaborates on the law and claiming to correct Ed's description rather than leveraging it in an argument.
Please describe how Ed is invoking Godwin's Law in his argument. I can't see it; does that mean I'm an ideologue? ;)
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2009 10:40 AM
Look, this may be politically incorrect for me to say, but here goes: Because I believe in the change in gene frequency over time, I crave the taste of human flesh.
Posted by: Barry | February 8, 2009 10:57 AM
Michael: We all know that moving from a theist position to Darwinism causes suicide, not cannibalism.
As for cannibalism and me, North Carolina doesn't have a Statute of Limitations for felonies, so you'll have to wait for the tell-all autobiography.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 8, 2009 10:58 AM
Kersham, they'll say it's "residual morality."
You're still shaped by your society.
Posted by: Bachalon | February 8, 2009 11:31 AM
Well, here's what Godwin himself had to say about the original phrasing of his law:
Source: http://www.jewcy.com/post/i_seem_be_verb_18_years_godwins_law
Posted by: Steve Morrison | February 8, 2009 12:55 PM
Molly: I grew up in an atheist home, so what's the explanation for me?
Which crime -- cannibalism, pedophiles, serial killing, terrorism -- are you confessing to, or are you saying you're actually "monumentally screwed up"? Or is it your alleged monumental screwedupness that's making you confuse Godwin with Poe? Or are you just saying you can't tell whether those comments are parodies of religious arguments?
Posted by: QrazyQat | February 8, 2009 1:09 PM
kehrsam, don't be coy--what terrible thing have you been up to?
Posted by: Molly, NYC | February 8, 2009 2:17 PM
A fairly reasonable question...if one happens to be a sociopath.
Posted by: MartinM | February 8, 2009 3:05 PM
As a clarification, Jeffrey Dahmer did not kill and eat 17 boys. Such hyberbolism can only result in the conflation of Dahmer's repressed perversions as part of the classic spiel that homosexuals molest boys (and how this is somehow tied to evolution). The average age for his victims was 22, with the youngest at 14 and the oldest at 36 (who was five years older than Dahmer at the time of his death). Only two of Dahmer's victims was under the legal age of consent for a male (at 14 each), while every other victim was 19 or older.
The best conclusion that can be gained from this is that Dahmer's life growing up and becoming an alcoholic stemmed from the bearing on his life as a latent homosexual (if such a label is true, although likely) under a conservative family. One tends towards atheism or agnosticism as a result of the reflexive, survivalistic need to reject a rejection of a part of yourself, as many homosexuals feel. We can certainly not aver that Manson, another amoralist, turned to homosexuality because he believed in evolution!
Posted by: Jaime A. Headden | February 8, 2009 5:28 PM
I don't think thats how the vast majority of people tend toward atheism. At least those I have met.
Posted by: JimC | February 8, 2009 7:36 PM
I'm pretty much an atheist and I've tasted a number of people--all opposite sex--over the years. But I don't feel at all like Jeffrey Dahmer.
Posted by: democommie | February 8, 2009 8:29 PM
"'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure *bullshit*."
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/g-logic.htm
Posted by: mrcreosote | February 8, 2009 9:16 PM
I believe that Dahmer believed in gravity as well.
Posted by: a lurker | February 8, 2009 9:24 PM
My experience with atheists (and I've known quite a few) has had them come from religious backgrounds. These include the many members of the various gay communities I have known, as well many classic straight atheists/agnostics with whom I've worked with, and then there's myself and a large portion of my famil, so I derive this not through a study, but personal experience.
Posted by: Jaime A. Headden | February 8, 2009 11:38 PM
Barry wrote:
Oh my god, I thought I was the only one. It's so wonderful to know there are others out there who share my special problem.
Posted by: Leni | February 9, 2009 12:02 AM
Leni & Barry, But have you stooped to 'white wine' Chianti?* -DJ
*Personally I'd rather drink low grade cooking sherry or straight ouzo or Midori, or at pinch used brake fluid!
Posted by: DingoJack | February 9, 2009 2:03 AM
Most people (assuming you're in America) come from religious backgrounds. I would assume JimC's objection to your statement is not to the idea that most atheists were once religious or were raised to be, but that they rejected religion as a reaction to their family's or religion's rejection of something about them.
Some/many/most atheists reject religion simply because they find it nonsensical or unbelievable.
Posted by: Morgan | February 9, 2009 3:58 AM
Of course one could argue that the religious feel so inadequate and unable to cope, they require a crutch to support themselves, to allow a feeling of belonging to something bigger, to be allied to someone powerful and/or to be infallibly right so they take up the banner of superstition and anti-intellectualism otherwise known as religion. - DJ
PS In my experience atheists are those of both religious and non-religious backgrounds who realise that evidence of reality does not support the supernatural hypothesis. They tend to reject this state of infantile unreality for one of knowledge and learning, and are thus much better equipped to deal with the world. Just my $0.016
Posted by: DingoJack | February 9, 2009 7:37 AM
Exactly. That's what did it for me. The free will/omniscience dilemma; the support for slavery in the bible; the certitude religious people have about their own position, when they generally are what they are by accident of geography at birth; etc, etc.
I've never delved deeper because there's no reason to. I reject religion because it is nonsensical and unbelievable, and more than that, I believe it has been one of the most harmful forces in the world, especially over the last two millennia or so.
Posted by: chris | February 9, 2009 11:05 AM
I don't understand why Dahmer and so many others believe the being a Christian and believing in evolution are mutually exclusive. Both the Catholic and Methodist churches accept evolution and don't believe it contradicts their faith. If evolution made Dahmer lose his faith, then he faith was probably very weak to begin with. Also, I doubt that believing humans came from dirt and ribs rather than slime would have prevented Dahmer from becoming a cannibal.
Posted by: catgirl | February 9, 2009 1:19 PM
Dahmer drank milk!!!
In fact, over 98% of all prison inmates drank milk as a child, therefore if we ban milk we'll end murder!!!
I truly love how they consider the psychotic killer and cannibal to be a rational commentator on the "ills" of evolution yet at the same time the guys who claim "God" told them to kill people are just crazy... funny how that works that way.
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 9, 2009 7:40 PM
Morgan wrote:
Most people (assuming you're in America) come from religious backgrounds. I would assume JimC's objection to your statement is not to the idea that most atheists were once religious or were raised to be, but that they rejected religion as a reaction to their family's or religion's rejection of something about them.
I thought I had actually used that in accordance to the argument I made about Dahmer's apparent latent homosexuality. Apparently not? My argument wasn't ONLY that atheists derive from a religious background (and the opposite can occur), but that the drive towards atheism is part of a rejection of a philosophy that doesn't include you. People who reconcile this religiousity with their oddity manage to live comfortably religiously. The Dish's Andrew Sullivan is a fairly public example, as is Kurt Wise.
Posted by: Jaime A. Headden | February 10, 2009 4:14 AM
Morgan wrote:
Most people (assuming you're in America) come from religious backgrounds. I would assume JimC's objection to your statement is not to the idea that most atheists were once religious or were raised to be, but that they rejected religion as a reaction to their family's or religion's rejection of something about them.
I thought I had actually used that in accordance to the argument I made about Dahmer's apparent latent homosexuality. Apparently not?
I had written:
The best conclusion that can be gained from this is that Dahmer's life growing up and becoming an alcoholic stemmed from the bearing on his life as a latent homosexual (if such a label is true, although likely) under a conservative family.
This led to the comment that JimC responded to:
One tends towards atheism or agnosticism as a result of the reflexive, survivalistic need to reject a rejection of a part of yourself, as many homosexuals feel.
My argument wasn't ONLY that atheists derive from a religious background (and the opposite can occur), but that the drive towards atheism is part of a rejection of a philosophy that doesn't include you. People who reconcile this religiousity with their oddity manage to live comfortably religiously. The Dish's Andrew Sullivan is a fairly public example, as is Kurt Wise.
Note that for a reason that may be similar to many of those who reject religion (implied directly above), I am not a Mormon (like half of my family) or a Scientologist (like a more immediate portion of my family) or really, much of anything. I simply choose not to make claims on the existence of God -- largely because I have no frame of reference, and I choose to look through a lens of Science at the world. I am also in no way defending Dahmer, but it is neccessary to consider the actions and events that occured against him to consider his position at the time.
Posted by: Jaime A. Headden | February 10, 2009 4:20 AM
Pardon the first, incomplete post.
Posted by: Jaime A. Headden | February 10, 2009 4:24 AM
Um.
No.
Not even close.
What a dumb comment.
I did not grow up in a religious household. It was pretty known that my parents believed, but we didn't go to church and they weren't super strict or anything and always promoted free thought.
So what, exactly, am I rejecting, exactly, as an atheist?
Posted by: marilove | February 11, 2009 1:51 PM