Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/14/09 03:20 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote: so you're saying that this thread is filled with straw man arguments and various other logical fallacies... AND that i'm fun to watch? that's awsome man! :p

No, I'm saying you're filled with logical fallacies which is funny because your statement is referring to you.

"Christian creationists believe God created animals, humanity, Earth and the universe in their original form in six days about 6,000 years ago, a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Bible. Muslim creationists have similar beliefs"

Ya well, I don't and neither does the french guy who wrote the book (even though as you say, he is not a muslim) The Qur'an clearly states 6 days, where a day is the equivalent of a thousand, two thousand, 50 thousand or more years. Therefore noting that the 6 days are 6 stages. And the Qur'an never actually describes these stages. It just says it was made in six stages. LINK Also, LINK

And what of the fact that the sun is moving and will stop at the Solar Apex? Now the Greeks did not know that. Quran link

Also, evolution is in the Quran. It says that God created everything from water. Water here being Oceans or seas. You'll also find that the french guy wrote about that too.

Please point one thing in the Quran that isn't in accordance with modern science.

At 1/14/09 04:48 AM, 4urentertainment wrote: Also, evolution is in the Quran. It says that God created everything from water. Water here being Oceans or seas. You'll also find that the french guy wrote about that too.

Evolution doesn't describe the creation of life.

Also if it clearly says water it can refer to any sort of liquid (not just the oceans)

At 1/13/09 06:44 PM, DeutscheFlux wrote: I don't judge someone on their beliefs and I don't try to prove them wrong. I don't mind atheists, but they are always trying to say religion is wrong and stuff. I just want them to leave it alone and stop attacking us. I let them believe what they want and I believe what I want. If I'm wrong big flippidy doo da! It's crap like this that constantly divides humanity rather than unite it.

The problem with this argument is that there are christians that try to enforce their morality and beliefs on non-christians. Atheism, and stem cell research comes to mind. Not too mention that "god" is on the dollar bill, and american children are forced to memorize a speech which assumes god exists.

The problem with most atheist arguments (imho) is they are completely material and unfocused. Talking about living well, and existing as an atheist in a non-atheist society would do much more than bashing the christian majority and the seemingly obligatory evolution arguments. From an atheistic perspective, the only way we're going to de-christianize our society is through informed education and engagement with others.

A common thing that confuses most christians i meet is atheist morality. I would suggest every atheist should talk about why they dont run around raping and pillaging, to christians, so as to inform them that "god" and "heaven" aren't the kind of rewards atheists seek in life.

At 1/14/09 04:48 AM, 4urentertainment wrote: Please point one thing in the Quran that isn't in accordance with modern science.

The Quran says, like the other books: There is only one God.

This is preposterous.

At 1/14/09 01:11 AM, Brick-top wrote:

Fail.

And the irony of you saying you can't take these discussions too seriously is very funny.

You just linked me to... the forums again?

And you wonder why I don't normally bother clicking your links. THIS IS WHY. THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE. THIS IS WHY LINKS ARE AN INVALID FORM OF EVIDENCE.

At 1/13/09 10:58 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: You're going to keep pushing the greed thing until I acknowledge it so ok.

It's mainly a supporting point to my honest belief that human beings are fundamentally flawed, which is an idea in congruence with original sin, although it has no links to any mythological stories about apples. One of the primary beliefs of Christianity and many other religions is that people are generally bad, and that life, generally speaking, is a bad experience.

Aside from that I already said that sequence alone is not enough to call one thing an extension of another. If I open a cabinet, and my mother falls down the stairs... is my mother falling down the stairs an extension of my openning a cabinet? It happened in the same house after all.

It's not about sequence. It's about the raw state of unsullied humanity. A human being who has no history with the outside world comes into the world, and their first, most natural reaction is to scream as hard as their lungs can manage. The same can be said of pampered rich kids who finally get a taste of the "real" world; their reaction is ALSO normally a mix of hatred, anger, and sadness. For example, during the baby boom when large droves of such sheltered individuals reached adulthood, there were HUGE demonstrations against the failings of the world.

This assumes that every time you help them you're thinking about how much more tragic it'll be when they die. However, people generally lack foresight and abound in selfishness. So while it may be a trap THAT makes the suffering of death that much worse, it is not a trap TO make the suffering of death that much worse.

Intent is irrelevant. A crack dealer's INTENT is to make money while giving someone something they want, and will make them very happy. Selling crack, however, is considered one of the most evil acts a person can commit in society, at least by our legal system.

I believe the ancient axiom is "the path to hell is paved with good intentions"

In cases where action is considered life affirming by the person acting, it's done so to lessen the pain of death: detachment through accomplishment. And hey... when it's done right it actually works.

It would only work if the recipient of said action didn't actually die at a later time.

In any case... could you make it more clear what that has to do with "my love for someone actually being an abstraction of my hate for them." Cause I don't see it and I don't want to spend 10 minutes assuming.

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" The idea here is that in the act of empathy, you're identifying the other person as an extention of self. It's about hatred for the world at large, and greed to assume someone else is actually under your control; within the bounds of your power. This is why people find helping the homeless to be so empowering; in that transaction, the homeless become a form of property. It's a form of assimiliation, of conquering another person's ego while it's still weak.

It makes sense that you chose an example where the definition of the initial action is defined by a purposefully intended conclusion.

Hey, I LIKE circular reasoning. Kind of like how a circular arch is very strong; it reinforces itself at every angle instead of only at an few individual points.

So no. You can't run off on tangents correllated mostly through a tone best characterized by "Sweet delicious hatred brings me joy" in leu of the actual point. And you can't say this course of action is excusable by saying the tangents are immutable truths.

I don't know... I've never been in a situation where hate was EVER lost to any form of altruism... EVER. Altruism may have a brief day in the sun, but eventually, hate always wins, even historically. Even the great Roman empire eventually fell to the raw hatred and greed of dirty uncivilized barbarians.

It's mainly a supporting point to my honest belief that human beings are fundamentally flawed, which is an idea in congruence with original sin, although it has no links to any mythological stories about apples. One of the primary beliefs of Christianity and many other religions is that people are generally bad, and that life, generally speaking, is a bad experience.

I've always wondered, why would you believe such a thing? Human beings are fundamentally flawed (as you indicate on of the primary beliefs of christianity and many other religions). Why?? I just don't get it, how do you know that we are flawed? That there is something better than life? I'd much sooner say: Human beings are not perfect and life won't always give you that warm fuzzy feeling inside, but flawed?

At 1/14/09 10:45 AM, jakobhummelen wrote: I'd much sooner say: Human beings are not perfect and life won't always give you that warm fuzzy feeling inside, but flawed?

I think the accusation that we are flawed is fair as long as one who would declare humanity flawed will continue to say that everything which is not perfect is flawed. Thus everything that exists in the universe is flawed, except the ideals that exist in the mind of perfection.

only in religion could 'why is everything not perfect' make sense as a topic of discussion

At 1/14/09 05:16 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/14/09 04:48 AM, 4urentertainment wrote: Also, evolution is in the Quran. It says that God created everything from water. Water here being Oceans or seas. You'll also find that the french guy wrote about that too.

Evolution doesn't describe the creation of life.

Also if it clearly says water it can refer to any sort of liquid (not just the oceans)

The french guy wrote two pages on why the "water" referred to in that verse means oceans and/or seas. I believe I linked it...

At 1/14/09 10:23 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: And you wonder why I don't normally bother clicking your links.

No, it's lazyness. I've taken religious people and their religion seriously. I've shown this in that thread.

At 1/14/09 11:03 AM, 4urentertainment wrote: The french guy wrote two pages on why the "water" referred to in that verse means oceans and/or seas. I believe I linked it...

At this current moment I don't have the time to check them (because I'll be coming off the computer shortly) however I will say if it clearly says "water" then he is interpreting it as the oceans and seas.

If the Qu'ran mentions evolution, then how come "Origin of the Species" wasn't written by Muslims? How come there weren't any Muslims who knew about DNA until it was discovered in 1952? Muslims should have been educating us about evolution hundreds of years before the theory was published. Or were they perhaps deliberately hiding secret information from us infidels?

PROTIP: The Qu'ran never mentions evolution, and the author(s) of Qu'ran definitely weren't thinking of evolution when they wrote that passage. You're just trying to use this vague "water" shit to make your religion look credible.

At 1/14/09 11:08 AM, Brick-top wrote:

No, it's lazyness. I've taken religious people and their religion seriously. I've shown this in that thread.

Then why did you link TO A FORUM, THIS FORUM, as proof of an argument? That's incongruent, my brother hypocrite. Also, I believe in your VERY first response to me, you called me a "troll," clearly an adhominem attack, and yet you go about pointing out "logical fallacies" in others. The adhominem attack is the FIRST AND FOREMOST logical fallacy.

But that's ok; everyone's a hypocrite, even me. Human beings are of course fundamentally flawed.

At 1/14/09 11:31 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: Then why did you link TO A FORUM, THIS FORUM, as proof of an argument?

I linked to you shaggys thread (if not I can link it again). In that thread is my post. You claimed I don't take Religion seriously. this one post shows I did.

Nuff said.

The greeks knew the solar apex.

If you honestly think 'man was made out of water' means anything like evolution then you're talking shit.

If the French guy you're basing all your stuff off isn't a Muslim then maybe you should consider how he's taking the piss out of your faith's gullibility for fame and fortune.

At 1/14/09 12:39 PM, Earfetish wrote: The greeks knew the solar apex.

honestly it's not a mystery, you just need to do astronomy and everyone did back them

As for 'mistakes in the Qu'ran':

"When he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring and found a people thereabout. We said: 'O Dhul-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness"' (Surah 18:86).

just the first one from a quick google

At 1/14/09 04:48 AM, 4urentertainment wrote:
Also, evolution is in the Quran. It says that God created everything from water. Water here being Oceans or seas. You'll also find that the french guy wrote about that too.

Please point one thing in the Quran that isn't in accordance with modern science.

I for one enjoyed reading what u wrote, I hope u make more 8)

At 1/14/09 12:42 PM, Earfetish wrote: As for 'mistakes in the Qu'ran':

"When he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring and found a people thereabout. We said: 'O Dhul-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness"' (Surah 18:86).

just the first one from a quick google

I have been reading the Koran, and there are all sorts of historical inaccuracies and lots of logical fallacies. The main one that it repeats is the fact that it yells at you that god exists and then says things like, "See? I've proved it."

At 1/14/09 01:21 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: Buddhism never comes up as the theism atheism is contrary to. It's just aggravating.

Huh? Buddhism isn't theistic. Buddhism is atheistic, so why would anyone say it is? You're confusing me...

At 1/14/09 11:18 AM, AapoJoki wrote: PROTIP: The Qu'ran never mentions evolution, and the author(s) of Qu'ran definitely weren't thinking of evolution when they wrote that passage. You're just trying to use this vague "water" shit to make your religion look credible.

I actually did notice one part that mentions something that could vaguely be interpreted as the idea of evolution. The Koran emphasizes that god created everything, sure, but very little in the Koran is actually solid information, rather it is actually extremely vague. The bits that are solid are usually repeated many times, such as that god commands people to "believe in him and in the last day", and that hell awaits those who don't.

At 1/14/09 01:39 PM, Tancrisism wrote: I actually did notice one part that mentions something that could vaguely be interpreted as the idea of evolution. The Koran emphasizes that god created everything, sure, but very little in the Koran is actually solid information, rather it is actually extremely vague. The bits that are solid are usually repeated many times, such as that god commands people to "believe in him and in the last day", and that hell awaits those who don't.

Shit, this is the second time that I have posted without finishing my thought. Consider this a continuation of my above post.

The idea of evolution is not a completely new one, and it did not completely originate with Darwin and his contemporaries. In fact, Darwin and his contemporaries were just the first people to flesh it out, study it, and write about it extensively. The actual idea did not originate in them, so it is actually quite possible that ancient Arabs speculated about the possibility of evolving animals. If so, it never really developed any further than a simple thought.

At 1/14/09 11:01 AM, Earfetish wrote: only in religion could 'why is everything not perfect' make sense as a topic of discussion

I was thinking the same thing until I remembered our universe is supposed to harbor black holes more efficiently than life-sustainable habitats.

How much closer to perfection can you get?

Especially if everything dies.

At 1/14/09 01:44 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

At 1/14/09 11:01 AM, Earfetish wrote: only in religion could 'why is everything not perfect' make sense as a topic of discussion

How much closer to perfection can you get?

Especially if everything dies.

Even if there IS no god, there's still a great argument in favor of the universe being designed to kill us all and humanity having an antagonistic relationship with all of existence. No matter how you put it, "black hole" does NOT equal fuzzy puppies and happy babies.

So then, the intrinsic human flaw would be that we live at all, considering the universe is wired for death and the eventual dstruction of all things.

At 1/14/09 10:23 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: It's mainly a supporting point to my honest belief that human beings are fundamentally flawed,

That's nice. It's not what we're discussing. Let's try to tackle the love hate thing first.

Aside from that I already said that sequence alone is not enough to call one thing an extension of another. If I open a cabinet, and my mother falls down the stairs... is my mother falling down the stairs an extension of my openning a cabinet? It happened in the same house after all.

It's not about sequence. It's about the raw state of unsullied humanity.

A raw state of being is being without (action and therefore without) stimulus. In this case 'being' is used to denote more than just the basic physiology of eat sleep etc.

The raw state is neither love nor hate nor any emotion (especially to a level of complexity with which we deal with) but rather plainly existing with the mechanisms to potentially or eventually express them.

If being born was a pleasant experience, and they still came out angry, then you might have a case.

This assumes that every time you help them you're thinking about how much more tragic it'll be when they die. However, people generally lack foresight and abound in selfishness. So while it may be a trap THAT makes the suffering of death that much worse, it is not a trap TO make the suffering of death that much worse.

Intent is irrelevant. A crack dealer's INTENT is to make money while giving someone something they want, and will make them very happy. Selling crack, however, is considered one of the most evil acts a person can commit in society, at least by our legal system.

I believe the ancient axiom is "the path to hell is paved with good intentions"

Intent is irrelevant if you're judging the morality of a person, which you then proceed to argue, which I agree with, but that's not what I was talking about.

Intent is very relevant when you discuss motivation. "I do this TO do that" is a statement identifying a motivation.

My entire point thus far has been one of motivation.

It would only work if the recipient of said action didn't actually die at a later time.

The goal isn't to live forever, atleast not as a physical-living-breathing human being.

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" The idea here is that in the act of empathy, you're identifying the other person as an extention of self. It's about hatred for the world at large, and greed to assume someone else is actually under your control; within the bounds of your power. This is why people find helping the homeless to be so empowering; in that transaction, the homeless become a form of property. It's a form of assimiliation, of conquering another person's ego while it's still weak.

You know. Just cause you name-drop hate doesn't mean a rant about social hierarchy explains it. Don't worry, I'll try to pull it back into context...

Usually, people only hate what they own when what they own exercises control over them.

Primary motivators for helping the homeless are control, a sense of righteousness, and commendations. You're also confusing property with reciprocity, which present similarly when one individual feels largely superior to another.

As for conquering another person. That doesn't mean we hate them. It means we value their opinion - and you can hate or love a person for that. We hate as an aversion to their judgement, and love as an attachment to their judgement.

Hey, I LIKE circular reasoning. Kind of like how a circular arch is very strong; it reinforces itself at every angle instead of only at an few individual points.

It wasn't circular at all. It was just an example of what you were talking about, so I wanted to note that I could see that your example fit iperfectly with what you were talking about. I wanted to do this because it afforded me the opportunity to rephrase the intent issue.

I don't know... I've never been in a situation where hate was EVER lost to any form of altruism... EVER. Altruism may have a brief day in the sun, but eventually, hate always wins, even historically.

That doesn't make altruism an extension of hate.

Connect the dots already.

At 1/14/09 12:39 PM, Earfetish wrote: If you honestly think 'man was made out of water' means anything like evolution then you're talking shit.

Well, there is a theory (sort of related to the Big Bang deal I guess) that all matter originated from Hydrogen, this makes some sense since it is the lightest (smallest, whatever) form of matter we know - and can think of.

Then again, Hydrogen alone doesn't make water. Sure man probably came from the water at some point, as all land and sky animals should probably have. But in the sense that it was our previous habitat, not that we existed of it; there's still about 20% of other matter in our bodies beside water.

The reason why the Muslims haven't discovered all that have been the ones teaching us all is that they didn't understand what it really meant back then.

The Quran is vague yes, however vague enough to be accepted 1000 years ago and to be accepted today.

"The Qur'an presents in two verses a brief synthesis of the phenomena that constituted the basic process of the formation of the Universe.
--sura 21, verse 30:

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?"

--sura 41, verse 11. God orders the Prophet to speak after inviting him to reflect on the subject of the earth's creation:

"Moreover (God) turned to the Heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth . . ."
There then follow the orders to submit, referred to on page 136.

We shall come back to the aquatic origins of life and examine them along with other biological problems raised by the Qur'an. The important things to remember at present are the following. a) The statement of the existence of a gaseous mass with fine particles, for this is how the word 'smoke' (dukan in Arabic) is to be interpreted. Smoke is generally made -up of a gaseous substratum, plus, in more or less stable suspension, fine particles that may belong to solid and even liquid states of matter at high or low temperature;

b) The reference to a separation process (fatq) of an primary single mass whose elements were initially fused together (ratq). It must be noted that in Arabic 'fatq' is the action of breaking, diffusing, separating, and that 'ratq' is the action of fusing or binding together elements to make a homogenous whole."

And Ear, your the one who said that the french guy isn't Muslim. Where did you find that?

Also, to your verse here, here's an explanation

The guy there says that at the time of Muhammed, the Quran was to challenge the Arabs of his time who excelled at poetry, and the Quran is famous for its poetic excellence. Also You'll not that the thread starter says that Muhammed married a girl aged 6.

At that time, it was normal Arab custom. The third, I have never heard of that.. No proof, no explanation.

At 1/14/09 04:00 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

The raw state is neither love nor hate nor any emotion (especially to a level of complexity with which we deal with) but rather plainly existing with the mechanisms to potentially or eventually express them.

So the raw state is to be dead inside? Or less disturbingly, ennui? Possibly boredom? Because if you look around, you'll see that the bored are those capable of some of the most heinous acts of all. Virus software anyone? Internet hate? It's a powerful movement born of idleness and emotional baseline.

If being born was a pleasant experience, and they still came out angry, then you might have a case.

You have to admit, though, that the fact that being born and the early days of life being unpleasant speaks VOLUMES about the relationship between humans and their environments. And what it says is antagonistic.

Intent is very relevant when you discuss motivation. "I do this TO do that" is a statement identifying a motivation.

My entire point thus far has been one of motivation.

Why do most people kill bugs on sight? They're not THAT big of an annoyance. I know why. HATE.

The goal isn't to live forever, atleast not as a physical-living-breathing human being.

Well I'm not a big fan of being dead, and I have every intention of getting as old as I possibly can. Good luck finding people who agree with that statement.

Usually, people only hate what they own when what they own exercises control over them.

Hmmm... you're missing me. It STARTS with hate, from hate to will to conquer, from will to conquer to possession, from possession to assimilation into self. For example, you see the deer, you hate the deer, you kill the deer, you possess the deer, you consume the deer.

Primary motivators for helping the homeless are control, a sense of righteousness, and commendations. You're also confusing property with reciprocity, which present similarly when one individual feels largely superior to another.

My argument is that attempting to control and conquering are the same. Reciprocity is still and extension of greed, so I'm still coming up with greed and hate. A refinement on that may get me, though.

As for conquering another person. That doesn't mean we hate them. It means we value their opinion - and you can hate or love a person for that. We hate as an aversion to their judgement, and love as an attachment to their judgement.

A conquered person is little more than a slave, if not in name, than in all practicality. I may love my dog, but if it ran away, I would hunt it down and FORCE it to my will against it's wishes.

That doesn't make altruism an extension of hate.

Connect the dots already.

I'm tempted to say altruism is a form of mental disorder based on ego loss, but I don't think I'm willing to defend that without some backing precepts.

At 1/14/09 04:48 AM, 4urentertainment wrote: Please point one thing in the Quran that isn't in accordance with modern science.

Or you can always fall back on the simple defense of stating: METAPHOR

At 1/14/09 06:01 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: The problem with this argument is that there are christians that try to enforce their morality and beliefs on non-christians.

As a Christian, the only beliefs that I feel should be enforced in the public realm are ones that protect everyone. For example, murder is a sin, according to Christianity. That doesn't mean we can't have legislation banning murder. That always bugs me when people try and cite "separation of church and state" as a reason to not pass legislation banning abortion or gay marriage. (I'm also mostly pro-choice-though I think abortion is wrong-and pro gay "rights"). I don't think those things should be banned, but I don't think "separation of church and state" is a valid reason. If the religious morality and benefit to society intersect, pass legislation. Otherwise, don't.

At 1/14/09 05:16 AM, Brick-top wrote: Evolution doesn't describe the creation of life.

No, but self-replicating molecules do. Over millions or billions of years, the fact that one of these chemicals could form doesn't seem to obscene.
(Once again, I'm a Christian, if you didn't read so above)
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/
01/replicatingrna.html
http://www.domainb.com/technology/2008/2 0080910_replicate_life.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16 382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-l ab.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

At 1/14/09 11:01 AM, Earfetish wrote: only in religion could 'why is everything not perfect' make sense as a topic of discussion

Or in discussion among angsty emo kids. Crawling in their skin and whatnot.

At 1/14/09 01:34 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: Huh? Buddhism isn't theistic. Buddhism is atheistic, so why would anyone say it is? You're confusing me...

Pantheism is still theism. But you're right. I should have picked a different nonAbrahamic religion. Like, Ayyavazhi, the Bahá'í faith, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Cao Dai, Shinto, Jainism...

At 1/14/09 03:55 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: No matter how you put it, "black hole" does NOT equal fuzzy puppies and happy babies.

In your point of view. Maybe a demonstration of perfection is the moderation of individual perfection for the whole. We're given free reign to interpret stimuli as we chose. You chose to interpret puppies and babies as happy, while someone else may interpret other things as happy. However, they're given the opportunity to make the universe what they want it to. Therefore, if someone's experiences dictate their interpretation, the universe holds the possibility of being perfect.

Final thought:
There is nothing to say that the big bang was not God's method of bringing the universe into existence (or the big bang could just have been god), and evolution was God's method of bring man into existence. Christianity, and the general idea of theism, doesn't dictate the acceptance of an invisible sky wizard who snapped his fingers to create everything. It discusses an all powerful force who can be interpreted in different ways.

I once met a theology/physics double major. She thought that God was the energy holding atoms together, and the energy of the quark's or string' or whatever is the smallest building block of the universe. It was a liberal, pantheistic view of the universe, but many Christian faiths teach that "God is everywhere."

At 1/14/09 06:14 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: So the raw state is to be dead inside? Or less disturbingly, ennui? Possibly boredom?

Ennui, boredom, and being "dead inside" (or extremely jaded) are not raw states. They are reactions.

You have to admit, though

All action is the result of an antagonistic relationship, even the 'nice' ones.That's where I've stood for quite a long time.

Why do most people kill bugs on sight? They're not THAT big of an annoyance. I know why. HATE.

It could be a transference of discontent. Some of these cases can be due to hate, but it doesn't take much discontent to take advantage of a bug. The less consequential or valuable a thing is perceived to be, the less emotional conviction it takes to destroy it.

So you've demonstrated a case in which hate can motivate a violent action probably devoid of love, in which hate is only sometimes a variable.

Well I'm not a big fan of being dead,

And I'm not talking about you, nor is the point of the strategy I mentioned a means to become a big fan of death.

Hmmm... you're missing me. It STARTS with hate, from hate to will to conquer, from will to conquer to possession, from possession to assimilation into self. For example, you see the deer, you hate the deer, you kill the deer, you possess the deer, you consume the deer.

Do you hunt? I mean... I'm sure there are some that do it out of contempt... especially when it comes to deer... but...

You don't have to hate a thing to want to possess it. Infact, the deer is more often just the means to possess something a bit more abstract. And in cases where the deer is the primary possession, the deer is most often revered.

And where in this chain reaction is love?

Reciprocity is still and extension of greed, so I'm still coming up with greed and hate.

Still only seeing greed over here.

(And I agree that reciprocity is an extension of greed)

A conquered person is little more than a slave, if not in name, than in all practicality.

If that's the definition of a conquered person then there is a huge difference between controlling and conquering.

I may love my dog, but if it ran away, I would hunt it down and FORCE it to my will against it's wishes.

Because you value it. Not because you hate it. You can hate it when it does something undesirable. That's also because you value it.

Let's isolate love, hate, and value. Now let's put them in an upside down pyramid. We put value at the tip, and split the next level into two halves. One half is love, the other hate.

I'm tempted to say altruism is a form of mental disorder based on ego loss

I'd agree with that, though it's more of a mental order. Now, let's get from ego loss to hate...

Look, it's all very simple. God has a plan. He's gonna play with us like GI Joes, and some of us get melted and blown up or we get our legs ripped off so he can get his jollies.