Also, I should've added the following sentence to the end of the last paragraph of the post: “And Will is merely making a claim about God, with certainty, in a case where he reasonably takes himself to have best and sufficient reason to believe the thing he's claiming.”

There. It's still sloppy, I suppose. Just less so.

It's not clear that one needs to prove that God doesn't exist in order to have best and sufficient reason to not believe in God. Probably, all one needs in order to have such reason is to think that the classic arguments for the existence of God aren't sound and that reference to God isn't needed in our best explanations about the world.

Also, it seems as though the most relevant (to this post and its comments) conception of God is something like the Judeo-Christian God. And there's great reason to think that that God can't exist, given what he's supposed to be like (all-good, all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, sends non-believers to hell forever).

Lastly, Will's certainty with respect to his position doesn't seem to be noticeably higher than yours about yours. We're often justified in making claims, with certainty, in cases where we have best and sufficient reason to believe the things we're claiming.

If you think comparing watching porn to having an affair is batshit crazy (and it is, of course), just be glad you didn't have to grow up learning that masturbation “is the most severe of all Torah forbidden sins“, including not just murder, but “when one emits sperm to waste it is as if he destroys the earth.” Which is, of course, “punishable by death.”

So give Ross Douthat some credit here; at least he is only comparing masturbation to having an affair. His analogy could have been a whole lot batshit crazier.

On the other hand, this assumes a pseudo-{zero-sum} relationship: as one loves the third party more, one loves the party of the second part (or “Chico”) less, or that the second party devalues the equal love felt for them [sic] because it is not exclusive. My polyamourous friends assert that this is not the case for them when all such activity is super mensa…I'd say, “I'll believe it when I see it,” but I'm not interested enough in them or the practice to look, so instead I'll take them on their word for now.

On the whole, though, I'd avoid the word “adultery” because it's nuclear. I once in 2002 had an e-mail correspondence with a local, half-reasonable radio talk-show host over his use of the term “treasonous” to describe some opponents of Bush's Iraq policy. In the end, he retreated to calling them “morally treasonous”, to which I objected on the grounds that using the word “treason” automatically brings more juice to the offence than consideration might well deem reasonable. It's used more as a way of deciding the outcome of an argument, rather than of arguing, tantamount to circular reasoning.

No, I wouldn't think you unreasonable at all. Nor do I think Will unreasonable for not believing in God. The thing is, there are compelling arguments on both sides of the God debate, and none (to my knowledge) in the unicorn debate. However, there really is no way to prove one side is right and the other side is wrong with respect to the existence of God. Thus, my only complaint is the forcefulness with which both hardcore theists and atheists assert their superiority.

Look, this is Will's blog, and he can write whatever the hell he wants. I'm just making a minor suggestion.