<<"We hold these truths to be self-evident...". Yes, such does appeal to
the highest authority, the Creator, and assume a creation-based view, in
contrast with one that requires teaching, enlightenment, revelation, or
some other special acquisition of knowledge that is otherwise not
available to the uninitiated. You are free to disagree that someone
else's 'given' is obvious, and they are free to choose not to invest much
time on the disagreement, although in this case perhaps too much time has
been invested. But this is a far cry from being close-minded. How much
time would you want to spend arguing with someone who had heard that you
were dead, from a source that they regard as more reliable than yourself?
Or someone convinced that you cannot know whether or not you actually
exist?>>


Huh? I'm having a little trouble tying this in to the thread.

<<As for the first day of the week being cultural, well, I live right
here, within my culture. The hypothetical you may regard Esperanto as a
superior language, but I wouldn't expect you to have much success in
using it.>>


Quite likely not. But the issue (for me, at least, though I may be a
minority) is whether or not it's a good idea to declare flatly and a
priori that such discussions are "a folly" or "pointless", instead of
holding the discussion and then deciding what action, if any, to take.

<<Of course, I may be reducing the argument to absurdity (reductio ad
absurdum), so that no one is required to demonstrate the fallacy of my
argument. Then I can call you small-minded, or close-minded, and you can
call me a idiot or a nutcase. When all else fails, there's always ad
hominem, or in this context, flames.>>


Unfortunately true. But flame on if you must ;-)

Steve