No, yours is the non-serious response. You have said exactly zilch, nothing, zero about my points.

Did you critique my complaint about your analogy, which forms a central part of your reasoning? No.

Did you you find a problem with the causal chain argument that underlies why I think there isn't room for reincarnation or other mystical supervenience? No.

Did you explain why my concerns about rare events and about underestimating children were invalid? No.

Did you critique my mathematics of selected examples, which is a key insight one needs to think about rare events (and for which you gave a probably-misleading example)? No.

These concerns directly address all of your main points, and you didn't bother saying anything.

Now, if you think something else is your main point--you did write rather a lot--say "address this", and I'm happy to do so. Maybe I overlooked something that you thought was really central but didn't strike me as such. I certainly didn't address every little thing. That would be tiresome point-scoring.

But what I did isn't. Rather, it's methodical analysis of and counterarguments against of every major thrust of your reasoning. If you're not going to do that, why even talk to people about reasons?