The arguments I am seeing here are actually based on intellectual prestige. Instead of solving the issue at hand, they are complicating everything. People are just arguing to show how good there are at arguing. Be warned

The author of this article seems to be so definite in all his claims, a thing anyone can do. The problem that is making a lot of so-called thinkers, particularly the author of this article, to be prejudiced is that they indirectly base all their arguments on the unproven assumption that human mind can solve all problems. We can listen to all this stuff only after the assumption is found to be valid. In the case that the assumption is proven wrong, our author should not be definite in his claims; it would be better for him to rather say 'What I think is blah blah(I wont mention his blaspheming claims)' than to say the stuff boldly. Be warned