I generally ignore stuff like this. It reminds me of much of literary criticism these days... it's pompous, it feels no need to cite examples, and prefers condescension to outright rudeness. If this were a criticism of Lisp in favor of Perl, it would be just as poor.

This post did contain a few redeeming ironies, though. Take this statement out of context:

to really destroy any useful concepts of how software is supposed to work for instance, the best possible way is to ridicule...

If the author intended this, he's quite a wit... since, being devoid of anything concrete, his whole post amounts to little more than ridicule. You cannot disprove anything he says; nor can you prove it. So what is it? It's an expression of taste, backed by rhetoric. To the extent that it pretends to be anything else, it's intellectually dishonest, too. To call this a religious argument slanders religion... religious arguments are supposed to deal with faith.

The other entertaining part, which I've abridged somewhat, is this:

a person's behavior is shaped by the rewards and the punishment he has received ... the signals that other people send them, so this is a powerful mechanism for programming the unthinking masses ... if you're very good at it, you can create a new world for them in which all of this makes sense

Perhaps this was the author's aim in writing this post. :-)