Instrument rating??

This is like arguing that you shouldn't wear a parachute, cause
if you do you'll take extreme chances and kill yourself.

Of course, look at the crash record of the Cirrus (if I'm not mistaken
it is relatively high considering the number of planes produced by
them). Many believe these accidents are the result of pilots taking
risks they normally wouldn't have taken in a non-parachute aircraft.
I believe Richard Collins wrote an interesting article about this a
few months back.

I have started my instrument rating and my piloting skills have
improved 10 fold. But will I be tempted to carry on into worsening
conditions after I have my rating? Well, probably, that is part of
what the rating is for. Perhaps this is why the ATP thought it was
dangerous (the weather may well be much wose than reported). I had an
ATP (and ex fighter pilot)tell me something similar. He advised me to
take aerobatics before getting the instrument. And then if I felt
like I still needed the instrument rating go ahead, but just do it to
improve your skills, "single engine planes are for sunny weather".
(He's retired and swears he doesn't fly on instruments or in single
engines much for that matter.) I didn't take is advise on the
aerobatics (yet) but I may keep my flying to relatively good weather
even after I get my ticket.

Anyway, my CFII now is an ATP and instructor for a major carrier and
he has no problems flying in the clouds at all. So who is right?
Well, neither one of these guys are idiots....