Saturday, November 5, 2011

Weekend Egnorance: Why Richard Dawkins almost certainly doesn't exist...



I was having my doubts, and this confirms it. Dr. Tommyrot demolishes the Dawkins of the Gaps Hypothesis.

36 comments:

  1. Michael,

    What rubbish. Up to your usual standard of humour (that is, not funny at all). I've met Richard Dawkins. He's real, and is actually a polite cultivated person, unlike you, who uses abusive words freely such as arsehole, bastards and bullshit.

    Personally, I have doubts whether YOU actually exist. I've never met you after all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @bach:

    Maybe I'm Richard Dawkins, one of his alternate personalities. Like Sybil.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Bach,
    I have never met the man, but I have been present when he was fielding questions. He came off as arrogant and snobby.

    @Mike,
    Think of it this way:
    "Dick is, or he is not(worth the read)"
    1. A Game is being played... where heads or a$$holes will turn up.
    2. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
    3.You must wager. It is not optional.
    4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that Dick is NOT. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain everything; if you lose, you lose NOTHING.
    Wager, then, without hesitation that He is NOT.
    Well... at least not worth the read.

    ReplyDelete
  5. bachfiend said...

    " What rubbish. Up to your usual standard of humour (that is, not funny at all)."

    Well you're pretty funny to read bach, I always get a kick out of your endless evasion/denial of reality tactics, as I imagine many others do.

    "I've met Richard Dawkins. He's real, and is actually a polite cultivated person,"

    Sure, all while being the worlds leading prime time atheist evangelist, making millions as a professional liar and 3rd rate thinker.

    I'm sure you'd have thought Stalin and Mao quite likable fellows too bach.
    And, I'll bet you bowed gracefully in awe before your guru.

    Once more:
    1. Atheism has no reason for politeness or culture.

    2. Being "cultivated" is what exactly? And why should I care under atheist "no ultimate foundations for ethics exist" rules?

    3. In a meaningless universe being "cultivated", on some insignificant piece of dust floating about in space (for no reason, going no where), what do the electrochemical processes occurring in a an even less significant 2 pounds of meat on that piece of dust, matter?

    " unlike you, who uses abusive words freely such as arsehole, bastards and bullshit."

    The thinking man is always amazed when atheists chide others for what they groundlessly consider right or wrong.

    Bach still hasn't figured this out yet.

    " Personally, I have doubts whether YOU actually exist. I've never met you after all."

    There's bachfiend mimicking the very "rubbish" and "bad humor" he chides M.E. for posting!!

    Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gary,

    I don't worship Richard Dawkins. I listen to and read him, and if I don't agree, then I reject it. He's human after all and can make mistakes. Mostly I agree with him.

    I saw him address a meeting in Melbourne in 2010 and a group of creationists bought tickets to attend (their right). In the 'question and answer' section at the end, one asked a grade-school level question on DNA which was greeting with 'hisses' from the largely atheist audience. I personally was shocked by the questioner referring to 'Mr Dawkins', which I think is disrespectful; it's Professor Dawkins, Dr Dawkins, Richard Dawkins or even Richard, not Mister.

    Richard Dawkins very quickly silenced the audience and gave a reasonable answer. He was polite too. I didn't hear him use words such as arsehole, bastards and bullshit either, as Michael often does.

    Well, we are living on an insignificant speck in an enormous Universe. We make meaning for ourselves living in societies of humans. Ethics are developed to make living in groups possible, and are objective.

    Mao and Stalin were humans too, they did good good things and bad things. Unfortunately the good they did was strongly outweighed by the bad, so that on the whole they were extremely bad.

    Although, for us in the West, it was fortunate that Stalin resisted Hitler so stubbornly and ruthlessly, otherwise the West would have lost considerably more soldiers in WWII.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "no ultimate foundations for ethics exist"

    No ultimate foundations for democracy exist, but we make a go of it.

    No objective truth of software exists, yet here we are sharing opinions over a global communications network.

    If the Bible is an "objective truth", why do you pick and choose which bits you consider moral and which you don't?

    If "God" provides objective morality, why does he tell Muslims to beat a disobedient wife or that death is the penalty for apostasy? If God provides objective morality, why do the Hitlers of the world wield God as easily as the Mother Theresas? Why is God on both sides of every dispute (except when an atheist is involved)?

    You get your morality from EXACTLY the same place I do - culture and evolution. Your culture has encoded some rules in this concept you call "God". Mine hasn't. Yours believes that fear of an imaginary being is the only thing keeping you from a murderous rampage, where mine believes "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is fundamentally an effective and rewarding social strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. bachfiend said...

    "Mostly I agree with him."

    Sad, because, "mostly", he's wrong, and demonstrably so.

    "... I personally was shocked by the questioner referring to 'Mr Dawkins'..."

    Shocked? Disrespectful?
    Again, you have no grounds for such in atheism.

    " Richard Dawkins very quickly silenced the audience ...I didn't hear him use words such as arsehole, bastards and bullshit either, as Michael often does."

    He's British. He's well known. He wants to pass himself off as a intellectual giant and superior.

    Dr. Egnor speaks on a blog his own thoughts. This isn't an official public debate.

    Dawkins is known for making snide and insulting comments about public debate attendees and interviewers once the debate is over.

    "... We make meaning for ourselves living in societies of humans. Ethics are developed to make living in groups possible, and are objective."

    Again:
    The meaning a couple of lbs of electrochemically active meat makes for itself is utterly insignificant and ultimately meaningless.

    Admit it. Stop lying to yourself.
    There is no proximate meaning possible in a universe that has no meaning.

    " Mao and Stalin were humans too, ... so that on the whole they were extremely bad."

    No, not at all, not according to atheism's absence of foundations for ethics.

    Under atheism they were neither good nor evil, since neither good nor evil can exist in a meaningless world where no ultimate foundations for ethics exist.

    This simple fact you persistently resist and deny, but your denial changes nothing of its being a fact.
    One recognized by virtually all atheist philosophers -including Dawkins.

    "In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music." Richard Dawkins, --Out of Eden, page 133

    Explain the meaning of "meaning" in a meaningless cosmos.

    The sooner you stop resisting this obvious conclusion -made by your own high priests- the sooner your journey away from the stupidity of atheism may begin.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @RickK

    ...do unto others as you would have others do unto you...

    I like an atheist citing and approving the Bible!
    BTW that's Luke 6:31.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If god says green is a more beautiful color than red, does that make green objectively more beautiful than red?

    Shocked? Disrespectful? You have no grounds for such in Christianity since the flying spaghetti monster is the one true god.

    Jawn.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gary,

    Sorry, you're wrong. Making up a mythical deity to justify meaning in your life is nonsensical, comforting though it may be to you.

    The second law of thermodynamics states that the Universe is descending along a gradient towards oblivion. Life on a tiny speck in a vast Universe take the energy flowing downwards, and convert it into useful forms, allowing the decline to be reversed.

    Similarly, life on Earth makes meaning in an essentially uncaring and meaningless Universe. We make our own meaning. A mythical god can't create meaning, because he doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pépé "I like an atheist citing and approving the Bible! BTW that's Luke 6:31."
    A, I assume, Westerner saying a commonly used version of a translation of the Biblical formulation of something dating back well before JC, from China to Babylon to Egypt (and wider, probably)? How...expected...and completely...within the ordinary.

    ReplyDelete
  13. troy makes another inane comment based on his own glaring ignorance and gullibility
    pathetic

    ReplyDelete
  14. bach attempts an intelligent response but hands out more nonsense ...

    "Sorry, you're wrong."

    Prove it.

    "Making up a mythical deity to justify meaning in your life is nonsensical, comforting though it may be to you."

    Nothing made up, just something extremely obvious to the greater part of mankind since the beginning, based on logical inference.

    "Life on a tiny speck in a vast Universe take the energy flowing downwards, and convert it into useful forms, allowing the decline to be reversed."

    Well you got that backwards.

    Useful forms huh? Serving what end? Oblivion and vanity.

    "Similarly, life on Earth makes meaning in an essentially uncaring and meaningless Universe. We make our own meaning."

    Your self-invented meaning is still meaningless and you know it.

    In atheism you're still just a bag of meat, utterly insignificant from day one to the end of the very short, rather miserable and feckless "life".

    "A mythical god can't create meaning, because he doesn't exist."

    Prove it.

    Gotcha again.

    You can't and you know it.
    Which is exactly why no atheist has ever even tried to prove his no god stance.

    One more time:
    It is impossible to know there is no God. Therefore atheism is a position held purely by blind faith alone.

    Thats you - the blind faith in nothing guy.

    Nothing created everything for no reason.
    Yet you're still clutching at ethereal straws - the product of electrons flowing through your 2 lbs of meat - attempting to make meaning out of this meaningless flow of energy for yourself - still meaningless for everyone else and utterly fruitless in the end.

    So, your next step is the usual atheist series:
    denial,
    evasive action,
    refuting strawman "gods" of your own imagination,
    excuses -for your incapacity to produce proof or even just evidence of your inane "no god" faith.

    Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Modusoperandi said...

    " A, I assume, Westerner saying a commonly used version of a translation of the Biblical formulation of something dating back well before JC, from China to Babylon to Egypt (and wider, probably)? How...expected...and completely...within the ordinary."

    Wow. An attempt to refute or belittle the words of Christ -reiterating the spirit of the transcendent moral- by pointing out that similar words were spoken before.
    Pretty useless there MO.

    Where do you think the Chinese, Egyptians. Norse, Babylonians, et al. got the principle from?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Gary,

    You can't prove the god of your preference exists either. You're relying entirely on faith and a desire to be comforted.

    Define exactly what sort of god you believe in and I'll explain why I don't accept that that sort of god exists, OK?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pepe said: "@RickK

    ...do unto others as you would have others do unto you...

    I like an atheist citing and approving the Bible!
    BTW that's Luke 6:31."


    Pepe, please tell me you don't think that concept originated with Jesus or Luke or even with Judaism. If you think somehow the "golden rule" is a Christian concept, then I suggest you browse this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

    And if you want to understand why it is a recurring theme throughout history, I recommend: "The Evolution of Cooperation" by Robert Axelrod.

    Humans understood that the Golden Rule leads to a better life LONG before the author of Luke was putting words in Jesus's mouth.

    But if your amusement is from the fact that my quote was similar to the King James Bible - I find the language of the KJV to be quite beautiful. Have you read it?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Gary H. "Wow. An attempt to refute or belittle the words of Christ -reiterating the spirit of the transcendent moral- by pointing out that similar words were spoken before. Pretty useless there MO."
    Belittle? No. It's a common saying, and a good one, no matter if it comes from Ted the Babylonian or Fred the Neighbor ("Rogers is one, and McFeely is his messenger").

    "Where do you think the Chinese, Egyptians. Norse, Babylonians, et al. got the principle from?"
    So who told the pygmy bonobos?

    RickK "But if your amusement is from the fact that my quote was similar to the King James Bible - I find the language of the KJV to be quite beautiful."
    That version of the Golden Rule is more NIV than KJV (or Douay-Rheims).

    ReplyDelete
  19. @bach...
    ...A mythical god can't create meaning, because he doesn't exist.

    The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Sir James Jeans.

    The theory of quantum mechanics says reality only exists once observed. Therefore, the universe only exists because it is being observed in its entirety!

    Instead of arguing, just think a little bit about that...

    ReplyDelete
  20. bachfiend ...

    "You can't prove the god of your preference exists either."

    First: As I predicted, this is merely an evasion of having to provide real evidence based answers for your atheism.

    Second: Actually I can. At least to the extent that any reasonable person would accept the obvious conclusions.

    But I'm glad you finally admit your world view is faith-based and unprovable.
    That's a step in the right direction.

    " You're relying entirely on faith and a desire to be comforted."

    LOL. Right. ROTFL.
    I can just the apostles laughing and weeping at this kind of inane atheist clatrap - the need for comfort.

    Yes indeed folks, they all died horrid deaths and suffered immensely most of their lives, but hey they believed in what they had to have known was a lie for comfort!!

    And think of all those multiple 1000s of martyrs of the 1st century - crucified, lit on fire, thrown to wild beasts, tortured, murdered, persecuted wherever they went ... of whom the world was not worthy.

    They all died willingly and even joyfully for a faith they could have easily verified was false!

    And for comfort!?!

    Dream on poor bach, dream on. You understand absolutely nothing of Christianity and truth.

    Your reasoning and attitude are despicable and appalling to say the least.

    I follow Jesus Christ because he's right and because he is the only one qualified to rule as great executive magistrate of the universe. His ways are just and true. His mercy is everlasting to those that love him. He is truth incarnate and the sole possible creator of all things.

    You? You follow your belly because you hate the very concept of submission to an authority figure who won't let you do whatever you please.

    "Define exactly what sort of god you believe in and I'll explain why I don't accept that that sort of god exists, OK?"

    No. I don't really care why you don't accept the only possible God.

    Give us the evidence that there is no God.
    This is what you must do to find reasonable support for your atheism.
    So where's your evidence?

    If you have no evidence, no proof whatsoever, you're lost in a world of make believe "nothing created everything" wishful thinking to comfort you.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Modusoperandi said...

    " Belittle? No. It's a common saying, and a good one, "

    What is good? Why is it good?

    " So who told the pygmy bonobos?"

    Wow, I can see you went to the same school of reasoning that anonymous, Intolerant Bastard, bach et al. went to. The school of nothing is something and it created everything.

    ReplyDelete
  22. RicKK reitereates his usual "doctrines for suckers" screed.

    "And if you want to understand why it is a recurring theme throughout history, I recommend: "The Evolution of Cooperation" by Robert Axelrod."

    LOL. I only wish tou were kidding.
    Evolutionary psychology is not science. It isn't history.
    It doesn't even count as elementary school thinking.

    Not surprised you were suckered into believing such codswallop.
    Hint: It's pure speculation based on belief in metaphysical naturalism and comes with zero support from any empirical evidence whatsoever.

    Not to mention its utterly comical but hey you're the joker here right.

    "Humans understood that the Golden Rule leads to a better life LONG before the author of Luke was putting words in Jesus's mouth."


    Wow. How did you manage to put so much error into such a short sentence? I'm impressed.

    You deserve a cigar Ricky!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Gary,

    Golly, 3 incoherent comments. How do you know that the Apostles and Martyrs died horrible deaths? The early Christians wrote the histories (the gospels) to reflect the winning dogma. Later Christians, when they were transcribing ancient texts to preserve them as copies interposed text to strengthen their 'truth' claims, such as the interposition in Josephus. The story of the martyrs was a latter addition, as Christians scoured old cemeteries looking for names to sacrifice as martyrs after the fact.

    Christians after they got power were much more likely to slaughter nonbelievers that they were in danger before they gained control.

    Obviously I can't exclude the possibility that a god created the Universe 13.7 billion years ago and then disappeared forever, because that's exactly how the Universe appears (absence of a existing god).

    I can exclude a personal god, who appeared physically to a handful of humans several thousand years ago, but whom hasn't been seen since then, takes an intense personal interest in individual humans, listens to prayers, gets very upset when humans misuse their sexual organs in certain ways, and sacrificed himself to himself to atone for Original Sin committed by a pair of mythical characters in the mythical Garden of Eden.

    Pepe,

    No, you don't understand quantum mechanics. Events don't have to be observed to happen in the quantum world. They happen all the time. Similarly, the Universe doesn't have to be observed to exist. That's just idiotic.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Pepe,

    Also your quote from Sir James Jeans comes from his 1930 book 'the Mysterious Universe'.

    It certainly was mysterious to him. He was the first to come up with the Steady State Universe, in which he thought matter (real matter, not Michael's concept of matter, or form, or substance, or whatever) was continuously being created to cause the expansion of the Universe.

    He was wrong in the major aspect of the Universe, so what makes you think his metaphorical allusion to the Universe is correct? Wishful thinking?

    ReplyDelete
  25. @bach...
    ...you don't understand quantum mechanics...

    More than you it seems!

    You should try to learn a bit more about Bell's theorem and the violation of Bell's inequality proving that "physical reality" or/and "physical separability" do not exist without consciousness. It also proved Einstein’s EPR paradox wrong: hidden variables, spooky action!

    ...It certainly was mysterious to him...

    Cosmologists use Schrödinger's equation and the quantum wavefunction to analyze the Big Bang. It seems Sir James Jeans was way ahead of you...

    You, on the other hand, are a close-minded fool sure of his own ignorance!

    ReplyDelete
  26. bachfiend said...

    "How do you know that the Apostles and Martyrs died horrible deaths?"

    Duh, there are about 75,000 Xians dying by rather horrible deaths every year in this present world directly due to persecutions.

    I suppose you also don't believe of Nero burning Christians, the persecutions of Domitian, Trajan, Septimius Severus ... nor anyone else huh?

    You're no better at all than a sick holocaust denier.

    "The early Christians wrote the histories ..."

    I see you've educated yourself in "higher criticism" etc. - revisionist versions of the facts and have swallowed it whole.

    What a surprise, you're clearly a sucker for lies.
    Obviously because it supports your hatred of God and your inner wish to crucify him again.

    "Obviously I can't exclude the possibility that a god ... exactly how the Universe appears (absence of a existing god).

    Your inane interpretation of the universe gets worse every time you hand it out. Its proof of your profound willful ignorance of fact.

    You've been deeply brainwashed by the trash writings that you drench your mind in.

    Everything you just said (as well as all that follows) literally reeks of secular humanist distortions and twisting of history.

    The whole "Josephus insertions" thing is so out of date and wrong its unbelievable that I'm still hearing this old crap.
    I learned that trash - and why its wrong - over 30 years ago; and here you are, a willing gullible dupe, repeating it as though it were nevertheless true!

    Its absolutely amazing the level of credulity you lend to your liar mentors while admitting no credence whatsoever to the simple facts.

    Even the wikipediaites strongly reprove your incredibly off the wall views.

    Nothing you say can be taken without strong caution against far too numerous falsehoods.

    You need a pro de-programmer.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Pepe,

    Leaving aside the point that all of Bell's theorem hasn't yet been confirmed experimentally, it still doesn't mean that 'consciousness' is necessary in the Universe to 'observe' each and every quantum event, almost all of which are unobserved and happen anyway.

    Quoting an 80 year old book (did you actually read it?), doesn't prove your view that the Universe was 'thought' into existence. A lot of sentences can be constructed that are grammatically correct but still wrong.

    Gary,

    I reject Christianity not because of textual criticism. I reject it because it is impossible.

    Humans have been around for 200,000 years, inventing tens of thousands of gods. Then several thousand years ago God appears to a small tribe in the Middle East, and a bit later sends his son to atone for Original Sin committed by a mythical pair in a mythical garden by being nailed to a cross. And then a few decades later, the original tribes revolt against Rome and they and their Christian offshoot are dispersed through the empire. And then several centuries later, Constantine decides to play the religion card and imposes Christianity on the empire to promote unity and prevent the collapse of the empire (it eventually failed).

    Christianity wasn't a runaway success expected by a divinely ordained religion. It spread slowly and was contingent on a lot of unpredictable historical events.

    I don't hate God. I just don't think he exists, like all the other God's invented by humans.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @bach...
    ...Bell's theorem hasn't yet been confirmed experimentally...

    Reading this may help you overcome close-mindedness!

    ...Quoting an 80 year old book...

    You probably don't believe standing on the shoulders of giants either!

    You should change your moniker from bachfiend to backward!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Pepe,

    You did read the section 'Loopholes' didn't you?

    It's still an enormous jump to go from Bell's theorem is correct, to all quantum events must be observed to have happened, to there's a consciousness in the Universe, to there's a god, to therefore the Trinity of God, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

    Actually, all science is incorrect in one way or another. Progress in science relies on developing more accurate theories and getting rid of theories that are just wrong.

    James Jeans' Steady State Universe was just wrong. If he thought the Universe was a mystery, it was just because he didn't understand it. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was also incorrect in many aspects and incomplete in many others, but the theory has been developed in the subsequent 150+ years so it's on much better footing than Big Bang Cosmology.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @bach...
    ...Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was also incorrect in many aspects and incomplete in many others, but the theory has been developed in the subsequent 150+ years...

    For once we agree! In 150+ years, Charlie's lie has grown to be a monumental fraud.

    As for loopholes, atheists do like to argue against the obvious!

    ReplyDelete
  31. bachf ...

    "I reject Christianity not because of textual criticism. I reject it because it is impossible."

    That's ridiculous. Your own existence is impossible without a supreme intelligent entity we call God.

    "Humans have been around for 200,000 years, inventing tens of thousands of gods."

    This is both true and false, but fully irrelevant.

    "Then several thousand years ago God appears to a small tribe in the Middle East,"

    Wrong as usual.
    Again, your "understanding" of biblical history & Xianity, like pretty much everything else you believe, is pathetic.

    "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."
    - Nelson Glueck

    "Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development ... The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural." - Miller Burrows

    That applies very nicely to the whole of your erroneous foundations and thus the entire edifice of your world view.
    Bad news for you.

    Sadly for you, and your fellow ignoramus dupe "teachers", I doubt such language will have any meaning. Your mind is on hold and nobody is answering.

    "a mythical pair in a mythical garden .... "

    Prove there was no Adam and Eve.
    You can't.
    Prove there was no garden east of Eden.

    While you're floundering around attempting to find support for your unsupported speculations, why not try to prove there was no Eden either.

    Prove there was no Noah, no Babylon, no Abraham ...

    "Christianity wasn't a runaway success expected by a divinely ordained religion. ..."

    Even your evaluations of history are all wrong. Its just amazing that you believe yourself.

    "I don't hate God. I just don't think he exists, like all the other God's invented by humans."

    You certainly do hate God. Your continued presence and your comments here prove it.

    You seem to spend virtually all of your life in denial of facts and reality and attempting to prove there is no God and you are his prophet; like all web atheists who think they know but only know the lies they love to live in.

    What a waste of a life. And what a sad destiny awaits all such.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Pepe said ...

    "You should change your moniker from bachfiend to backward!"

    THAT is certainly true. This guy has it all backwards to the point of imbecility.

    No wonder, he reads all the wrong books.
    Books written by people like himself; God haters, truth haters, revisionists and "deceivers, deceiving and being deceived" who pass on the duping skills.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Gary H.,
    You wrote: You certainly do hate God.

    No, because it's impossible to hate something that doesn't exist. If you can't understand this, you're an idiot.

    It's extremely sad to see what religion has done to you. It made you completely nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous said...


    " No, because it's impossible to hate something that doesn't exist."

    Curiously anonymous (just one of his many pseudonyms here), after receiving many humiliations and corrections to his comedy of errors, has not given up spewing out swill.

    Well to answer this further clueless statement of yours let us use your own inane logic.

    Nothing is actually something and in fact, "nothing created everything".

    Therefore you see, yes one can hate that which doesn't exist *nothing) really does exist according to you and still has "energy and mass".

    Gotcha again!

    "If you can't understand this, you're an idiot."

    Right back at ya.

    " It's extremely sad to see what religion has done to you. It made you completely nuts."

    Thank you. Coming from you that's a compliment.

    You see, you believe nothing is something, the reverse of reality.

    Therefore, following your reverse reasonings, "nuts" must mean super intelligent.

    ReplyDelete