Are Atheists Mentally Ill

I haven't taken anything in this thread to be an argument or implication for the existence of deities. I don't see this addressed in the quote at all.The quote just says that it can be dangerous to believe in things just because they make you happy, and that this caution extends to religious beliefs.

As a well educated, financially secure person who as worked hard all their life I voted liberal because I not everyone has had the advantages and luck I have had.Voting for a position where the less fortunate are support by some of my wages seems to make perfect sense to me.It's the right thing to do.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

What floats the boat is what makes you happy.

It's the same answer.If the question is instead "how can I feel content with my life?" I'd give a slightly different answer (although it would contain a large element of replicating life - or at least going through the motions.)The reason religion exists at all, is the egotistical opinion that life has a puropse beyond itself - it doesn't.

And it makes you happy.

Yes, that's technically true. But just wrong.
The context of the quote is that it is a rebuttal of an argument:Believer -> God exists. That's why Christians are happier than atheists... it's proof that God exists!
George Bernard Shaw -> The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.Notice how the quote says "...no more to the point..."
"The point" being discussed is whether or not God exists.

I'm not sure I understand this.For me, seeking knowledge and truth are what make me happy.

Not so. It annoys me (I'm naturally selfish) but I do it because it's the right thing to do and makes sense.(Damn moochers).Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Just because it makes you happy... or could make someone else happy doesn't mean it does.You're in the "there's no such thing as an unselfish good-deed" fallacy.Just because you can think of a reason why an action could have been selfish... doesn't mean that is the reason why the action was taken. Therefore, the action could have been taken for unselfish reasons.In the same vein...Just because you can think of a reason why someone's action might make them happy... doesn't mean that is the reason why the action was taken. Therefore, the action could have been taken for non-happy reasons.Or:Just because someone gains some amount of happiness following their purpose to life... doesn't mean that their purpose to life definitely is to gain happiness.

And yet you might make life choices that are unarguably less "happy" in the pursuit of fulfilling that ultimate goal.The fuzzy definition of "happiness" is part of what I'm trying to point out. In one sense a person seeking "happiness" is a hedonist trying to maximize pleasure and enjoyment in life. In another sense "happiness" can be the contentment of having fulfilled a value, even though the process was not enjoyable.But see my other earlier response - there are choices some people make in life that are virtually guaranteed to result in misery and even death for the individual, yet they choose those paths over happier options because there is something else they value more than their own happiness.

You're using a definition of "happy" that encompasses literally everything.If prison, torture, and death are encompassed in your definition of "happy," then I contend that your usage makes the word utterly meaningless.

Not at all. Plenty of people's lives have had a purpose that had nothing to do with just reproducing. Our lives can, in fact, have a purpose.

And the short resolution to that dichotomy is that nature doesn't care - but we do.

Then what does the quote have to do with this thread?

I think it's clear that Tangle was being an equivocating wise ass.No need to dwell on his nonsense.