Two babies discussion.

[Angrboda]

[Mudhammam]

And then the mother had an abortion and the babies died.

The end.

[DeadChannel]

I don't get it. Is there a point? Does it add anything to the debate?

[Simon Moon]

False analogy is false.

MysticKinght, you sure spend an awful lot of time attempting to come with ways to rationalize your beliefs. When in all honesty, you have stated many times that your beliefs are based on feelings.

I just don't get it.

[JuliaL]

DOGBERT: "From now on, I will not try to reason with the idiots I encounter. I will dismiss them by waving my paw and saying, 'Bah.'"

DILBERT: "Just because someone thinks differently from you doesn't mean he's an idiot, Dogbert."

DOGBERT: (waving paw) "Bah."

[JesusHChrist]

Three triplets in the womb discuss what they would like to be when they grow up.
The first one says, "I wanna be a plumber, so I can fix the pipes in here."
The second one says, "I wanna be an electrician, so I can get some lights in here."
The third one says, "I wanna be a boxer."
The other two ask, "Why do you want to be a boxer?"
He replies, "So I can beat the hell out of that rude bald guy who keeps coming in here and spitting on us."

[Tonus]

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?”

The other baby was the founder of DiGiorno's Pizza, right?

[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.

[JesusHChrist]

I don't know about the rest of you hardhearted skeptics, but analogies such as the OP presented, make my fucking skin crawl.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Once, there were two infants in the same womb. One said to the other *nothing* because foeti can't talk.

Boru