"I submit that claims about God are of this latter sort. There’s simply no reason to take them more seriously than one does claims about witches or ghosts."
I... what... is this some kind of atheistic affective death spiral? How could this possibly be construed as a reasonable analogy, even rhetorically? And with such a smug tone? Why are we tolerating blatantly misleading dark arts that appeal to the inductive biases of our epistemological reference class?
What is unreasonable about the analogy? All three are claims about apparently unfalsifiable super-natural entities with no normal epistemological support, and many arguments for God would seem to work as well for other such entities. (As Anselm's contemporary pointed out, his ontological argument served as well to prove the existence of perfect demons or islands or fairies.)
If you disagree, a read of the paper might be in order so you don't have to resort to accusations of the Dark Arts.
Take off every 'quote'! You know what you doing. For great insight. Move 'quote'.
And if you don't: