Attention: To my faithful readers from every stripe and any worldview, offer your best reason and do tell a worldwide audience WHY you are, or are not, more significant than a maggot.
Go ahead, accept the challenge, but be careful now, as your words will be forever etched in time and history. I promise not to be unkind with any lame excuse.
The Lions Den 
This is simple.
Humans are more significant that maggots, because humans control what we mean by “significant”. Of course, we favor ourselves.
LikeLiked by 3 people
AAh but neil, maggots are a by product. They do fulfill a purpose, but surely you can’t put them in the same reverence as the bee…………which produces that greatest of all nectars: honey, to be enjoyed by man.
But i do love the answer by SOM.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neil, Assume an objective definition of “significant” that is fair to both humans and maggots; for instance, a definition from the Webster Dictionary. Who than is more significant, human beings or maggots?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yay silence, you win the prize. You paid attention to the singular word wherein lies the only correct analysis.
You are on a roll.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s no such thing. The definitions in Webster’s dictionary are controlled by humans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will respond to this challenge from two standpoints: reason and faith.
The argument from reason:
First what am I? I am H o m o Sapiens. H o m o Sapiens is the top of the food chain who creates art, music, architecture, electricity, internal combustion, jet aircraft, space travel, digital and bio technologies. H o m o Sapiens fulfills its nature by pursuing moral excellence (virtuous living), and being creative.
What is a maggot? A maggot is progeny of a fly in the larval stage of development characteristic of insects. A fly fulfills its nature after being born in fecal or rotting organic material by consuming fecal or rotting organic material and by being food for creatures like birds, lizards and bats.
Consequently, it is obvious that H o m o Sapiens is more significant than a maggot.
The argument from faith:
From the Book of Genesis, God created man and woman in his own image and gave them dominion over all creatures.
Consequently, man is the most significant of all creatures.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, not only significant, but the MOST sig. Well done, an artful reply. tkx.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, humans are not the top of the food chain. There are other creatures that live off of humans and human waste.
Don’t forget that humans create global warming, ozone holes, habitat desctruction. The human concept of “objective” is biased toward humans.
No, I am not trying to attack humans. I’m just pointing out that there are no ideal unbiased standards for anything.
LikeLike
Neil, It is obvious that human beings are the top of the food chain. Human beings have developed sophisticated technology with which we design and create our own living environments. Animals live in the raw, natural environment unless they are domesticated.
The question is, which is more significant human beings are maggots. In the sense of this post, “significance” means importance. The maggot has no sense of importance. Therefore, man is more significant by default since he is the only creature who is self-aware.
Common sense is not bias. Consequently, your argument has no basis in fact or reality, only your personal opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neil-
The definitions are in the dictionary because they are based in reality. There is no equal to Mr. Webster.
His original work was long before fools and the internet. Study the correct definition of ‘significance’ then try to put mosquitoes on par with Gutenberg.
LikeLike
I think, therefore I am.
I thought, therefore I was.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Always count on ya Doug for biting/ sometimes terse/ always thoughtful/ commentary.
You do admit though the highest nature of all creatures, even with the good, bad, and ugly.
LikeLike
We reason to survive, “they” don’t. The opposing thumbs helps. A big advantage. Yet we still must surrender to pure instinct to continue to procreate our species.
LikeLike
To finish the thought… significance exists only if one recognizes it.
LikeLike
Hmm. Not sure here partner. Take the sun for example. Surely relevant and important in every way- even if we ignore it.
I suppose a thousand reasons could confirm this, but at the end of the day, man with all our warts, is high above every created thing.
Pretty sure fleas have no interest in climbing the majestic 29k feet Everest. A man might be crazy for doing it but still…..
LikeLike
You are more religious, spiritual, than myself so I am sure you can see that religion exits in the eyes of man to assign man preeminence in the universe, subservient only to God. That being the measure then certainly the maggot stands far below mankind in importance… with mankind having dominion over all living things. Not for me to judge one bit.
Yet I might make the observation that a lowly microbe.. a virus… presumably without a conscious religion…. without a moral center… has done a fair job taking mankind to its knees, thus challenging mankind’s dominance to survive, entirely motivated by its own instinct to survive. I tend to think mankind is less about asserting dominance over something and more about recognizing its humble place in the universe. But what do I know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually Doug- a ‘religious’ answer is not needed here. Your take on a virus is fair- but that’s a whole other issue- then again- with such punishing policies the last few years- many feel insignificant as a maggot maybe-
LikeLike
Ah.. the policies again…. you don’t mean the policies, you mean the politics.., pure and simple. Sorry.. you feeling like a “maggot” in having to wear a mask, that’s on you, I’m afraid.
LikeLike
Nah, not the mask- but look at Canada now. The truckers/ their wives/ their law enforcement relatives/ their spouses who worked tirelessly in the ED’s/ remember? The heroes back in the day?
These same heroes are now called racist?? Really? But yeah, politics. They want their lives back. Who can argue otherwise.
LikeLike
Significant to whom or what?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi ark- happy new year-
Say hey to SOM- he pretty much detailed what I was after-
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d rather read it from you.
I’ve already popped over to SOM’s place and said my ‘hellos’.
So …. to significance,
You’re up, Poindexter. What you got?
LikeLiked by 1 person
When you think of a common maggot, most certainly it fulfills a purple and is therefore important- but it’s ‘birth’ is another link d from whence it came- ie, the fly.
Whereas your spouse birthed a kind like it’s mother- not another kind to be developed – but one in the same image- fully human- not mature- but human- will grow into a little creator of sorts-
But there are untold ways that preach the innate worth of humans over all other creatures-
I’m pretty sure no forest animal could paint the Sistine ceiling or chisel Rodin-
LikeLike
Again, it returns back to significant to whom or what.
Your perspective is wholly subjective.
LikeLike
But wasn’t it our friend SOM who said just employ common sense? But yeah, my perspective is of great value. Not boasting, just confident of man’s esteemed place on earth.
LikeLike
And there we have it … the underlying disingenuous reason for the post …
Yahweh.
Sigh
T’was ever thus.
LikeLike
So be honest ark. Where here did I mention Yahweh?? Try to be fair and judge what’s before you.
But disingenuous? Where? Why is it so hard to face and admit that man alone (scripture or even God aside) has a place that no others can occupy?
Of birds, fish, beasts, insects, who can claim a kind of sovereignty that others cannot?
Are you not master of your own garden??? Not sure why you do not agree with this short post entirely.
LikeLike
Because you are a believer in Yahweh. We’ve ‘known’ each other for years now, so there is no need to be coy with me.
You could just have easily used a bee as an example of significance, and we all know what will happen if bees go extinct or their numbers reduced to an insignificant number … humans could well starve.
So, yes, your post is disingenuous, or filing that, just thoughtless based on your abject ignorance.
LikeLike
[sigh] Always a person at the ready to judge the ignorance of another.
LikeLike
You consider his post has merit?
LikeLike
Well, whether I do or not does not necessarily make me inclined to suggest some subjective opinion is from an ignorant source. But if you two have a history, then not my business I suppose.
LikeLike
Our ‘history’ or not does not detract from the fact no evidence was presented in this post, so what exactly do you consider subjective?
I am interested to read what you base this on.
LikeLike
Maybe I am missing something. He posted a question.. why or why not are we any more significant than a maggot. Not sure how much actual thought that requires but there’s a pretty good thread going on about it all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes,you probably are missing something.
LikeLike
Amazing how simple questions reveal complex thoughts eh Doug? Our points of view color our bias or so it seems. Then again, some would say it’s the opposite.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We are simple-minded complex creatures for sure. Well, ok, some of us are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark- just for clarification- what EVIDENCE is implied in the original question about significance between man and maggots?
Don’t ask for mine. Skyld brought his opinion, as weak as it is, at least he offered something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Posts like yours which ALWAYS have an underlying theological motivation are little more than mental masturbation and are really not worth the effort of philosophical consideration.
LikeLike
If I told you that an ‘ugly’ bulb would create the most gorgeous of flowers- you would say I was preaching the resurrection of nature.
Quite the dilemma for you eh. Go ahead, say I’m fraudulent for telling the truth. A mere badge of flattery really.
I’m pretty sure I don’t lie on my blog-
LikeLike
Nope. I would ask you what you meant by ugly bulb.
LikeLike
Ugly when compared to the tulip. The maggot is ugly when compared to the fly.
YET, a day old baby girl is never ‘ugly,’ in that she is the direct image of the mother. Indeed, all nature agrees regarding the ‘kinds,’ thus proving once more that Genesis is the repository of truth, much to the chagrin of Darwinians.
So here we go, Significant.
LikeLike
That anything like coyote ugly? 🙂
LikeLike
Ha! Coyote ruff is gorgeous.
LikeLike
Again ugly is in the eye of the beholder.
You’ll have to cite a relevant flower, bulb example.
Some people loath flies and might not be repulsed by maggots
A friend came over for coffee this afternoon and we were discussing snakes.
I love them. She,on the other hand, goes into a paroxysm of dread at the mere thought of them. In fact she actually shuddered while we were chatting!
I have seen a couple of babies that would hardly be called beautiful!
Unfortunately, they didn’t improve that much as adults …. Again beauty in the eye of the beholder.
Your final paragraph is drivel and not worth the effort to take down.
LikeLike
Ark, Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is in fact, objective. If the beholder is ignorant and unschooled beauty will be like atheism, only one small, insignificant man’s personal opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wrong beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder for otherwise one would have to assert that a blind person has no concept of beauty.
I acknowledge however, your ignorance.
LikeLike
Ark, Your opinion is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That fact is, that beauty has objective, definable qualities that make beauty beautiful and ugly, ugly.
Opinion is all you have. And we all know what opinion is like because everybody has one.
LikeLike
Wrong again.
You really struggle with simple logic and common sense, don’t you?
T’was ever thus, my Fundy friend.
LikeLike
Ark, You proclaim, “Wrong again,” as if you were God. But of course, the atheist is god in his own mind only. Come down from your godly realm and argue your case. Alas, you cannot, for the atheist god never has to explain himself because god is always right.
LikeLike
Nothing to do with it.
Evidence shows for example blind people can discern beauty.
What you consider beautiful I may consider loathsome.
I offered you the example of my friend and her feelings towards snakes, which you ignored.
You are simply blowing smoke out your backside.
While there are certain qualities that might be deemed more helpful when trying to attract a mate – consider, facial symmetry for example, or Birds of Paradise on Guinea – the perception of beauty is subjective.
I love Dali’s art. My wife thinks it awful and weird.
Be honest enough to acknowledge you are trying to push a theological agenda and walk away with a modicum of integrity and self-respect still intact
LikeLike
Ark, Your “evidence” is simply your personal opinion. You have a personal opinion that you support with other personal opinion that you call “evidence.”
If you aren’t god of your own private universe how are you able to simply proclaim, “Wrong again”?
You never explain anything. You just proclaim what you opine to be true and expect everyone to accept it as Gospel truth.
LikeLike
If you see a rose and consider it beautiful that is your personal view/ opinion.
There is no standard that says it IS beautiful.
So, once again, you are wrong.
LikeLike
So, what is more beautiful…. maggots on dead flesh, or a bumblebee atop that flower??
One is SIGNIFICANTLY. Yes, there is a ‘common sense’ variance shared by humans. Atheism apparently does not share what is natural to the senses.
Also, evolution is clueless and can never explain beauty, since chaos is not compatible with order.
Back to out word, Significant…..
LikeLike
And we’re back to the theological kicker.
Well done! You never fail to disappoint.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You may see it that way. I see it the correct and only way.
But Tkx for the compliment-
LikeLike
Ark, you wrote: “If you see a rose and consider it beautiful that is your personal view/ opinion.
There is no standard that says it IS beautiful.
So, once again, you are wrong.”
You are not even responding to my comments. That means you are arguing with yourself and losing. I’ll leave you to it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Silence- this conversation reminds me of this: 2 guys are in a museum housing the worlds finest original art.
While one focuses on the creativity, beauty, inspiration, history, humanity/ the other only sees a pimple on another patron eying the same art.
One is significantly more in tune with the Docent…….
LikeLike
If you cannot provide evidence that demonstrates the veracity of your assertion then it is nothing but a claim. Therefore write something rational and include evidence and we will have something to discuss.
LikeLike
Ark, You haven’t provided any evidence to support your personal opinion other than your own personal opinion. Evidence please.
LikeLike
The fact you and l have different perspectives on what is or is not beauty is evidence enough there is no objective standard.
Similar criteria can be applied when trying to determine significance.
As has already been pointed out.
LikeLike
Ark, Your personal opinion is not evidence. And because a person is ignorant of evidence does not mean that evidence does not exist. That is simple common sense.
LikeLike
Okay,so please present the evidence that demonstrates the veracity of your view for beauty and significance.
Thanks
LikeLike
Ark, You are the one demanding evidence, so you go first. But of course you can’t go first, second or last because all your evidence is just a collection of your own personal opinions. The atheist always declares a personal opinion as the Gospel truth and then presents more personal opinion as evidence for his personal opinion.
You have inspired me to write a post of my own on this over at Silence of Mind blog. I will be able to add illustrations.
LikeLike
The OP made the claim. The onus is on CS to provide the evidence.
It was ever thus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark, You made the claim that beauty is in the eye of beholder. Where is the evidence? You cannot provide evidence for your claim so there is no need to disgrace yourself any further.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was referencing the well- known saying. I am sure you are familiar with it?
As I’m sure you’ll agree, it is more of a philosophical issue, one that has never been resolved to produce a universally accepted standard, as far as I am aware?
For example: I’ll venture most people probably think you are ugly, whereas I feel confident you are Hot Property, indeed!
Thus, on this basis, evidence suggests beauty remains subjective.
A similar scenario applies for the claim regarding significence.
No evidence was produced for the claim re:objectivity.
It remains subjective.
Sorry, old boy, this is one ‘Gotcha’! you ain’t ‘got.’
But thank you for playing. It’s nice to see you back and was fun to spar with you again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark, You just gave a your personal opinion as evidence to support your personal opinion which you now admit is merely a personal opinion. All exactly as I predicted you would. You are a shameless rabble rouser who has nothing whatsoever to offer to the conversation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought you understood we were done here?
Isn’t it time for your meds?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also suggested he might be disingenuous, which would likely rule out ignorance.
You choose ….
LikeLike
Maggots, my favorite subject! Something I think is kind of cool, they are probably not self aware so it is likely they have no knowledge of human existence at all. Therefore we can know that things can be objectively real and yet beyond a creature’s ability or senses to detect them. The opinion of maggots of course, does not determine if humans are entitled to exist or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maggots are an important part of the ecosystem and arguably more valuable than humans as I think humans destroy the worlds ecosystems. Maggots are more likely to be eating dead humans and animals assisting the decaying process rather than the other way around, but of course a very few might such as the delicacy of Italian maggot cheese or where bugs are commonly eaten according to Google. Maggots are used to clean infected wounds in many countries, it is an approved modern medical procedure. Maggots therefore are more useful then many humans give them credit, they are another amazing part of the biological evolutionary world we all depend on.
LikeLike
sklyjd, Yours is a purely Marxist argument taken directly from the Communist Manifesto. That is, human worth is measured by its productivity. As is proven by history, Marxism is a catastrophic failure everywhere it is tried.
To add failure to more failure, you invoke Darwin: fly larva are more useful because they contribute more to the ecosystem then H o m o Sapiens.
It is obvious that H o m o Sapiens has risen above earth’s ecosystems. Consequently, their contribution to the earth’s ecosystem is a non sequitur. And having risen above earth’s ecosystem puts H o m o Sapiens above all other creatures and thus, more significant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve- to repeat- maggots are a recycled product from ‘something else.’
Humans are not born on food piles to morph into ‘something else.’ Of course everything has value to a degree, but name one maggot which had a city named after it, or one which built a bronze ‘thinker’ to be admired by millions of humans.
If common sense faces the music or the arts, it is more than obvious that Man has no equal. Atheism is thus slayed on the altar of insignificance.
(Tkx for the comment)
LikeLike