Have to agree that this seems like a lot of name-calling and rhetorical suppressive fire which fails to address any actual arguments. Giving the devil his due,

Have to agree that this seems like a lot of name-calling and rhetorical suppressive fire which fails to address any actual arguments. Giving the devil his due, Kurzweil has been proved wrong on almost every single prediction he's made up to the current day--at least from my reading of his 'Singularity' book. Mostly as a consequence of the bottom falling out of Moore's Law. But like most articles addressing the singularity thesis, the author completely fails to understand it even in the most rudimentary way. The singularity hypothesis depends on several plausible but not guaranteed steps of cause and effect; the author could have discussed anyone, and, as other commenters have mentioned, there are valid reasons to think the singularity highly unlikely. But like so many bloggers, their thought process only went as far as 'sounds weird to me personally--must be a religion!' More generally, it's both lazy and extremely dangerous to dismiss an idea simply because it seems unusual to you. This is called the Absurdity Bias, and is fairly well demonstrated. Just for example, there are comments in this thread saying that while some of the radical predictions of technologists are possible, there's 'also nothing to suggest humans are capable of developing it.' Sounds a lot like something Lord Byron would have said about antibiotics or powered flight a few years back.