Religion says that love is what matters. It even says God is love. That is how much it matters. It says that God creates all and all is good but we have deformed that good so evil is really just another word for "not good". Evil is good in the wrong place and time. It concludes that hate is a warped love. It says then the opposite of love is not hate but indifference.
St Thomas Aquinas in his Summa said that "love must needs precede hatred." So whatever hate is, warped love or not, love has to be there first and then hate becomes possible. He also wrote, "Love of one thing is the cause of one's hating its contrary". So if you feel love the hate is there but you may not be aware. Love is dodgy if it is hiding the poison underneath from you and by extension anybody you come in contact with. The more you love, the more the hate you think is not there, is there.
If you are going to say there is a God, the being who alone ultimately matters, you might accept what Jesus taught, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and entire being. Don't love your neighbour as God but as yourself and for the sake of God. Life is not about you or me but God." That demands a lot of hate. It is grossly malicious to require such worship if it means creating hate inside yourself for a God who may not care or not exist.
Aquinas cited how Augustine wrote, "There is no one who does not flee from pain, more than he desires pleasure." So pleasure does not come first. This would seem to say that we hate pain more than we love pleasure so hate can be stronger than love. Aquinas answered that hatred arises from love so this is wrong "it is impossible for an effect to be stronger than its cause. Now every hatred arises from some love as its cause". He means absolutely. He is rejecting the notion that hate is some great power and that love is less in comparison. But he says in individual cases we can make ourselves feel more hate than love. For him hate is an attitude first then a feeling so you can hate a person terribly without feeling much hate. That helps support the view that you may not realise the hate in you, it is there lurking in the shadows of your heart and mind.
The wily Aquinas didn't tell us that if we put it there subliminally or under the surface it is so it will explode or find an outlet when your facade comes down. It is not hiding for nothing. We don't hide it for nothing. If there is a devil he is not helping us and prompting us to hide it just because he has nothing to do.
We hate pain then. What if God helped you avoid pain? What if God helped you get pleasure? If the former God is the one you would take if there were a choice then the Christian claim that we yearn for a relationship with God and the joy he brings is dishonest. It would be a very negative reason to choose God. For many of us it would be forced for we have huge sufferings. That is the doctrine, "God blesses us with the gift of free will so that we can freely and joyfully respond to him with love" flushed down the toilet.
Aquinas warned that "anger has more mercy than hatred has. For hatred desires another's evil, for evil's sake; it is satisfied with no particular measure of evil: because those things that are desired for their own sake, are desired without measure." Anger is related to justice and turns to mercy if it feels it is about to go too far. He wrote, "Anger desires evil as a means of just vengeance".
Hate wants to harm and it can be targeted towards a person or a devil or even a thing or an idea. Religion says we should hate sin while knowing hate is insatiable. If you tell yourself it is not there it will be lurking in you and you would not even realise.
Religion likes to say there is a moral difference between letting evil happen and in doing it. In other words, you are advised if there is a choice between causing and letting happen let things run their course. If people were praying to chance, what would they ask for? Let the avalanche come and fatally take way the hundred children. If there is only one alternative, to push a lever and make it happen while sparing one child then do not push. This is really about wanting to feel morally justified even if you are not and despite the fact that there are children dead. Sorry because of the fact of how they died. It completely contradicts the doctrine that evil in all its forms hides its true face and when it shows an evil face that is not the real one. It is a tip of the iceberg. For that reason while we may say that sometimes letting evil happen is not as bad as doing it, we cannot prove that any situation we point to is an example of that.
If the "let it run its course" advice is about how religion thinks God is in charge and not to play God then that is very dangerous and irresponsible if there is no God or at least no God that is really concerned. It is human life we are talking about.
Remember they teach that Satan intervenes to make sure you will not be happy enough with the harm you do to get you to do more.
St Thomas also wrote that Psalm 102:5 suggests God alone can satisfy what the human needs for he is the source of all good things. The Bible says God is a good thing himself too. This is the ultimate basis of the Christian doctrine that evil never satisfies. For example, a greedy person would be greedy forever if they could for they will never have enough. Is evil a refusal to be satisfied? It could be. It could also on its own be unsatisfying. If evil is never satiated or never gets enough then its punishment needs to be severe.
This defines evil not as harm but as the implied or direct rejection of God. You think you can get good without him. You prefer something to him. This understanding is not natural to us. We see evil as excessive harm - period. He cannot even be harmed. Realistically, such a doctrine is not going to make us humane. We may act humane but we are suppressing our natural affections to keep up the pretence. If the doctrine is untrue then we are programming ourselves to be never satisfied with evil. I am the one doing the evil but others who tacitly or actively support me are part of the problem. The evil is shared and is not just mine. The feeling that it is shared helps me proceed with it.
Human nature will only murder or do whatever harm it can think of for some good. St Thomas Aquinas said the reason this is evil for you are choosing what seems good without caring if it is really good or not. But that calls an evil act a mistake and a risk. Morality says to give the benefit of the doubt which leaves you that you have an impossible time explaining how and why you should punish somebody. He says that we are evil if we do something such as stealing or vandalising or wishing harm on somebody when we know that there could be bad results that otherwise would not come about. "When a man foresees that many evils may follow from his action, and yet does not desist therefrom, this shows his will to be all the more inordinate". He is clear that an evil deed cannot be made good by good results or a good deed made evil by bad results.
Interestingly, we worry more about a person being malicious than them being a thief or charming fraudster. According to Thomas, we know that to have a lying heart will lead to us hiding from ourselves the malice we may feel. So while theft is not malevolent, it is indirectly malevolent for your heart is letting evils in including malice. To let the potential for malignant hate in is to be as bad as an actual hater.
We find lies in the notion that love is stronger than hate. If you believe that, then keep away from Christianity. Its version of the notion is the worst.