This is the kind of exaggeration that makes a lot of people to avoid even trying Lisp. Any programming language that uses a different programming paradigm than the one you are familiar with will make you a better programmer.
Maybe the people who wrote the Clojure tutorials considered that question to be SO natural they didn't even mention it, but I found it very unintuitive. And running a very slow tool on every code change and waiting for the build and then starting the program is very unnatural and un-lisp-like.
Common Lisp is a bit old by now, but it's always been very stable and fast. Maybe Racket is a more modern+mature Lisp family member that's nice to try.
I don't understand what age has to do with anything... CL is still a good language.
As some have said, it's worth learning because of the way it can change the way you think about things. It sounds hokey and trite, or like someone's trying to be smug ("I'm in the secret lisp club!"), but I genuinely feel profoundly grateful to have been exposed to Lisp. (To be fair, I also really like programming in Python for _many_ of the same reasons I enjoyed programming in Lisp.)
I mean, however cheesy some Smug Lisp Weenies(tm) may be, why not learn something new? Lisp (the language family) is really cool, you should try it. elisp may not be the most exciting family member, though.
Just saying... I assume you have your reasons to refuse Lisp.
Whether or not lisp is worthwhile to learn has nothing to do with how some people advocate for it, right?
Emacs is developed by Lisp whose syntax is different from common programming languages. A developer who is curious enough to try Lisp is possibly more intelligent than average. Lisp is often the third language he/she learns (Java/C/C# is the first, a script language like Bash/Python/Perl/Ruby is the second).