What makes the arguments idiotic if they’re not illogical?
bold added
Interesting argument. So you’re saying that all you have to do to have courage is to think that someone is backing you up? You don’t need evidence of it or any proof that it’s true?
If that’s the case, you’ve basically made the case for faith, which is the belief in something unseen and for which there is little or no evidence.
Let’s say that someone told you that there are snipers all around you who will kill off anyone who tries to harm you. Would you have instant courage for any activity given this fact even if there’s no evidence that these snipers actually exist? If someone told you that they exist but they hide themselves very well, does that give you more courage? What if you saw glimmers of someone moving quickly out of your sight, would that give you more proof that these snipers really exist? And would it give you more courage?
Can you make yourself believe? Try it.
What takes courage (or stupidity since there’s a often a fine line between the two) is to believe the first assumption. Then as you say, acting with conviction if you take for granted the first assumption is less difficult.
Exactly. The question in the linked thread is:
which is pretty much a nonsensical question.
If you ask a stupid question, you get answers that are easy to criticize.
And Skald the Rhymer seems to have made of hobby of doing this with religious questions.