Ha, Dr. Kashif! A big applause for your logic to prove the existence of god! I agree...some people even believe in ghosts without ever seeing them! I think you can do with a better explanation to defend your almighty lord. Don't worry I wont bother to provide any as I myself am an agnostic. It's rather a matter of individual faith than some public debate. And I won't question the presence of your mind either. Seems you have plenty of it to understand few logics. Plants are alive? yes, they are, so we eat them. so far so good. Animals are alive? yes, they too indeed are alive, we may eat them. so far so good. Apparently both are incapable of defending themselves, thus they are slaughtered, eaten and relished by us, humans. Understandable. Now what about human-beings? they are alive? of-course they are. Many of them are even incapable of defending themselves. Do we eat humans, our own kinds? I hope our unianimous answer is 'NO'. Why so? Just because we are not cannibals? or is that so because humans have some kind of acid in their bodies, thus making them unfit to be eaten?? If this is the basic logic behind everything then I think I'd rather concede with dignity than indulging in this futile and utile debate! Still, to provide some food for thoughts to our dear friends who would happen to come across this page in the near future and in case find it undeleted, I'd bother to give an insight behind the rationale of our eating habits. This is an ancient instinct instilled in every living being owing to which they don't eat their own kinds. This is another form of selfishness that can be seen everywhere. As an old anecdote goes, when a mother monkey and her child were put in a big vessel which was being filled with water, mother tried to save her child by allowing him to sit on her shoulders. But after a while when water reached her vital organs and endangered her own life, she sacrificed her child instead to salvage her own life. This phenomenon is universal in its applicability, however we try to deny and distance ourself from its application. If given a choice to choose among a group of thousand people, one person to be given a life with all the freedom, one person to be given a brutal death sentence and rest to be given prison for a lifetime. No prize for guessing...we will choose our nearest kin to be the first and the lucky one, our enemy, the person whom we feel most distant from, to be the 2nd and the most unfortunate one and rest will be alloted some sympathy and some indifference. Any disagreements? I hope I could make this picture a little clearer than the one we started from. Humans killed animals to save their own lives from starvation. Perfectly understandable. This was the scene when humans could not GROW their food in the form of trees and crops (their more distant relatives). But when they did start to grow their food they decided to spare their closer relatives, the animals, in the same way their ancestors had abondened cannabalism after learning to hunt for their food. This is a basic human instinct that we feel more guilty taking life of a beautiful elephant than we do after taking that of a mosquito! The reason being our closer association with elephants who we find more beautiful and perceptive and thus closer to our own species. The same goes in the present time. In the same way where it is acceptable for a mother to accept the death of a distant relative in favour of sparing the life of her own child, it is understandable for a human being to kill an animal to keep himself and his near and dear ones from starvation. It has widely been acknowledged as an inherent feature of civilization. We do, have to and should be allowed to do some differentiation and discrimination between plants and animals. Still it is a matter of choice that whether a person wants to go vegetarian or non-vegetarian. People should be given some assistance to think about it with an untainted rationale rather than forcing them to do the so called right thing. Afterall rights and wrongs are also subjective to human perception and intelligence. We won't be willing to shed any human blood debating about the welfare of animals, will we?? Again, just a basic instict.