Athiest who are serious and educated what do you think about this?

I'm not an atheist.

They say we can prove life outside the womb, but of course, they are outside the womb. They say babies can't talk and think that is worth pointing out here. They suggest that you are home schooled, which you ought to take as a compliment since home school children test better at standardized testing (though they make up excuses for that too. See my source below.) They all miss the point that the story is trying to make. It's true that just because you can make an analogy to something doesn't make it true, but that doesn't mean it can't make you think more clearly about something. The point of the story is that we have all existed in a place where the world we now live in would have been entirely unimaginable, even if we had the capacity to imagine it. And if you could do science in there, you would be restricted to what was available to you there and would have to rule out the world outside the mother just as you would anything outside nature in real science.

This is a horrible analogy. Babies have instincts, they use these instincts to communicate with their caregivers. They recognize their mother's scent, and the bit about baby no. 1 saying eating by mouth is impossible is especially stupid, as babies instinctively know how to suckle even before leaving the womb (this is why many babies can be seen sucking their thumbs in sonograms). Not only that, they CAN see in the womb, and they can grasp the walls of the womb. This is what gives us our fingerprints. Because of the fact that babies instinctively suckle, and the fact that they can feel their mother surrounding them, this analogy is very flawed. No matter how hard you try, you cannot physically feel God. To compare a baby in a womb to an adult atheist is ridiculous.

I am not an atheist I am a Laveyan Satanist (LaVeyan satanists believe that both god and satan were myths and follow the Church of Satan, the 'codes and conducts' make a lot of seance actually), although I am an Agnostic LaVeyan Satanist, I am not sure as to whether god and satan exist.

This is a very very interesting point and made me laugh a little, because it proves in a weird way what I've always said, that nothing is 100% proved, and that there is always a possibility, I do like this and if I make it as a phillosophy teacher I may use an example of something like this, it really does make a good point although you will get a lot of atheists (especially the one who back science all the way) denying this as a possibility, when again it's not 100% proven. I am not saying this is not what happens to a baby or its mind in the womb as it would be deemed absurd, but I do think that it is a very nice example and possible theory if you want it to be, although it has countless amount of loop holes, but doesn't every theory?

There is a possibility and who are we to deny that?

You're implying that the second baby has some kind of psychic connection with her mother, that all his "knowledge" is revealed. There is no parallel in the womb, especially not one that involves genocide, tribalism, and blood sacrifice.

Ironically, you could, with Mother, substitute a number of mythical, ridiculous things, just like with God, and the same reasoning you're using to "support" it could be applied.

You are correct that our senses and knowledge are limited. It is possible, however (and importantly) unsupported, that there is life after death and existence outside of the physical universe. Only there does your analogy succeed. Again, though, it is meaningless speculation.

The second said "Once out of the womb, we'll rapidly grow to 1000 pounds then use beetroot powered hovercraft to transport eagle caviar to the overlords"

Hmm, seems like guessing what comes after birth isn't the best approach.

I think that just because you can create an analogy between two things doesn't make the analogy legitimate.

For example, here's a humorous article that draws dozens of parallels between Toy Story and The Walking Dead, trying to prove that they're the exact same story.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/undeniable-proof-th...

Your story is like that: you've drawn entertaining parallels between a fetal state and your own religious beliefs, but it certainly doesn't prove or establish or even suggest anything.

I'm considering a conversion to Christianity but I must say this question is a really bad one. And really doesn't need some one with an education to refute

Wait... you want us to believe that two babies were talking to each other in the womb AND that you're sane?

There is proof of life after delivery, but not one drop of evidence besides a book about life after death.

Now that you know this mistake of not presenting proof you can retype this question along with your proof and we will discuss this on the revised question.

Life after birth is a real thing that is detectable by us. There is nothing supernatural about childbirth.