Two babies discussion.

[Esquilax]

The problem with the analogy is patently obvious to anyone not desperately trying to cover for their unjustified beliefs using it. Why is the "atheist" baby's position so flawed to us? Why is his belief a source of comedy? It's because we know better, it's because we have the benefit of information that neither of the babies has. We know there's a world beyond the womb, and so the thrust of the story is that the atheist baby, using the same arguments a real world atheist would use, is clearly missing an obvious point. But how do we know there's a world outside the womb? Fucking evidence, that's how. Something neither of the babies could possibly possess of the real world, and most tellingly, we don't know there's a world beyond the womb/beyond this one on the strength of the arguments the "theist" baby presents in the conversation, because the theist baby doesn't present any arguments or evidence; all we get from it is a series of hypothetical assertions that neither baby has reason to believe ("Maybe we won't need our umbilical cord!") and completely baseless fiat assertions.

There's nothing in there that actually classifies as an argument, and if you seriously want to use the whole parable as an argument for whatever afterlife you believe in, if you are honestly telling me that you think the theist baby's position is tenable based on the information it provides us, then your position boils down to "boy, you'll be embarrassed if I turn out to be right, completely accidentally!"

That's hardly an actual position at all.