User: gratezenad

Steve in your response to Cragslad you gave evidence to support the Bible, but have you ever read and studied the Quran or the Upanishads as thoroughly as you have the Bible. So, again there is no certainty that Christianity is true in its beliefs while other religions are not. I am not an expert because I have not read the Bible, Quran or the Upanishads, but there could be just as much proof in the Quran and the Upanishads that there is in the Bible.

Kindness is much more important than belief in God, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammed etc. If you are kind and treat others with respect you will go to Heaven because God is forgiving. If you haven't noticed, it is the most religous people that carry the most hatred towards some other group (blacks, hispanics, whites, asians, gays, westerners, muslims, christians, buddhists, tall, short, fat, skinny, and the list goes on and on). I see more people hate others in the name of God that it is sickening. So, I think a non believer will go to heaven if they are kind. Besides a non believer wouldn't believe in Heaven.

I believe animals should have rights. All living organisms (trees, animals, insects, etc.) are our equals and should be respected. Everyone has heard of racism, but not many have heard of speciesism (the discrimination against another species). "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated" Mahatma Gandhi

Just wanted to mention the dog food high in protein is not good for all dogs. Giant breeds (Great Dane, Mastiffs, St. Bernard, etc.) should have less protein as puppies than other puppies. They should eat the amount of protein that an adult dog should have. This is because too much protein will cause them to grow too fast and this will cause pain, usually in the legs. Once they are full grown they typically outgrow any issues they had from rapid growth, but it is always best to simply relieve the problem by feeding them adult dog food as puppies.

In college I wrote an essay on vivisection (animal testing)and it is unreliable. Even if using Chimps, who are our closest genetic relative, the tests still won't tell you how humans will react to a product because that 2% genetic difference makes a huge difference. Chimps were once used for AIDS research, however, chimps don't develop AIDS when infected with HIV. Since chimps have such an opposite reaction with HIV it is only logical to realize that anything tested on chimps or any other non-human animal could also have cause different reactions amongst the species. An example is protease inhibitors, which are used to treat people with AIDS and have been life saving for many. The pharmaceutical company, Merck, delayed the release of these drugs for 4 years because the drugs killed lab dogs and rats. The opposite is also true. A drug found safe for a test species can be harmful to another species. An example of this is Fenphen. Animal testing showed that this once popular diet drug had no serious side effects, but in humans the drug caused heart-valve defect. The drug was quickly pulled from the market. Here is a quote from AAVS (American Anti-vivisection society) mentioning other cases. "The undeniable fact of the matter is that different animals vary in their response to drugs. The drugs Fialuridine, designed to treat hepatitis, was shown to be safe in tests with dogs, woodchucks, monkeys and other animals, but a number of fatalities resulted from pre-market clinical screening with humans. Penicillin, the archetypal "miracle drug" is fatal to guinea pigs, but has saved countless human lives. The drugs Oraflex, Selacryn, Zomax, Suprol and Meritol produced such adverse side effects in humans that they were removed from the market, though animal experimentation had predicted all of them to be safe. The list goes on and on." Also, adding to the unreliability of vivisection is that most human diseases are caused by the environment, lifestyle and diet. While, lab animals are bred in a controlled, sterile environment and most diseases are induced. People are falsely led to believe that animal testing weeds out harmful drugs, but the only way to be 100% sure how a drug effects humans is to test them on humans. Although this also seems unethical, at least a human has the choice to volunteer to be apart of an experiment. If someone has a fatal disease they could be given that choice to be apart of an experiment, but only if they are fully aware of possibly having adverse side effects, including death. It would still be their choice. Besides all drugs are eventually tested on humans. It is just usually without their knowledge. When a newly release drug hits the market the people who first use it are "human guinea pigs". They just never agreed to be one and have a false sense in believing this new drug is safe.