Well, Woodrow, as per usual you make good points – yet, as per usual, we have differences in opinions – and definitions! Point by point (with your wording):
• All “believe” more strongly than relevant evidence warrants
(although the belief may also be in the material, scientific world)
Here, I would want an exposition on the word “belief”. Thus, as a scientist, rather than stating that I “believe” in an objective, material reality external to my mind, I would say that there is a 99.999999999…% probability [to a total of about 25 nines] that it exists. Thus, I base that “belief” on evidence.
• All “believe” what they want to believe, in spite of evidence
(The scientist believes that all things can be measured)
Again in my case, rather than say I believe that all things can be measured, I would say that evidence suggests that there’s a 99.99 % chance (I won’t push that much higher, cause I’m worried about “dark matter”) that things external to my mind can be measured. And again, evidence supports the estimate (i.e., supports the “belief”).
• All wallow in the delusion that they’ll live forever
Note: For the benefit of atheists This would be more accurate as "All wallow in the delusion that they’ll either cease to exist or live forever, but either way eternity will be there"
Yes, but one would be hard pressed to defend that they “wallow” in such a delusion; I, for one, rather wish that I wouldn’t die, but “c’est la vie” – even if that does stretch the meaning of the French!
• All display less scientific competence than children
(The Scientist fails to accept the fact that because he can not measure something, only means he lacks the tools for measurement)
Ah but you’re taking this one too far! My point was (and is): if you inform a child that you can jump over the moon, then in her appropriate terminology, she’ll say: “Please provide an experimental confirmation of the predictions of your hypothesis”, e.g., “betcha can’t!” On the other hand, once a child is indoctrinated (by those she trusts, such as her parents) that she can live forever in paradise, she loses the natural skepticism that challenged your ability to jump over the moon.
• All cling to their “holy books” like children cling to comic books
• All accept ideas about “the supernatural” when no data support such speculations
(What is scientific to some is supernatural to others and vice versa)
Ah, come on now, you’ve just slipped that one in – hoping I wouldn’t notice?! Science has nothing to do with anything supernatural! Meanwhile, anyone who suggests that there’s something “scientific” about the supernatural doesn’t understand science.
• All have the astounding arrogance to assume that some supernatural entity (which they claim created this universe) has any concern for ant-like humans
Well, that’s silly! Those of us who reject ideas about “the supernatural” certainly don’t then (inconsistently) make any assumption about such things!
• All now laugh at those of us who say “Show me the data” – whereas, in the past,
• All murdered thousands if not millions of us who said to the believers “Get real!”
• All put up huge blockades that inhibit progress toward solving the many real problems of the world, and
• All are destined for oblivion – the sooner, the better.
(We will all face death, oblivion is simply a personal opinion as to how we will face it)
Well, with those expansions to “all”, I can see some justification for such generalizations (thinking of the Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, etc.); yet, as far as I know, they’re inappropriate for humanists – so maybe better: “All except humanists…” etc.
And yes: maybe oblivion for all, since even though we may live through our collision with the Andromeda galaxy (in a few billion years), Earth will be swallowed up by the sun in about 5 billion years. But then, surely by that time, humans will make it to other star systems – and maybe even to other galaxies. Moreover, as for “oblivion” with death: so long as we leave something that benefits future generations, then in a sense, we live on.