Assuming the genesis account of the first man and woman is fundamentally accurate, and that humans were never meant to "eat from the tree of knowledge", than the conflict can be simplified into this...
"Satan" race = Proposes the human species have a biological right to develop intellect, reasoning, independence, technological advancement.
"God" race = Opposes the human species have a biological right to develop intellect, reasoning, independence, technological advancement.
If humans were never meant to develop intellectually, than is it God's intention to reverse human intellect/advancement?
Ethically speaking, is it moral for a species capable of intellect to be ruled by another intelligent species?
Remember that God wanted Adam and Eve to be perpetual mindless slaves and it was only thanks to Satan that they developed the ability to think. Satan helped them emancipate themselves and God only shows himself as a jelous control freak when he goes on to punish not only Adam and Eve themselves but their descendants too - I mean, seriously the laws that we humans made are not as ridiculous as to punish people for crimes their ancestors committed, and yet this is somewhat ok for the ultimate moral authority of the universe?
But that's not it. Throughout the Bible God wants us to kill one another, wants us to suffer, be oppressed and poor. The Catholic church is the perfect realization of this scheme. Keeping people in 3rd world countries poor, oppressed and aid-dependent because suffering -they believe - is the best way to prove your faith. I mean really? What if I beat my wife senseless and then in court I tell the judge I wanted to see if she could still love me, therefore proving to me her love was stronger than the pain (that I gave her)? I think I'd be locked in an institution for a long time to come.
Let's look at Satan on the other hand. He wants to give us the freedom to make our own choices, knowledge, power and wealth. He is the voice of reason and common sense in the bible. Take for example when he tempts Jesus. He doesn't really ask for anything special. If Jesus was the son of God as he claimed then that stuff should have been nothing for him. This was nothing but common sense scepticism if you ask me, and Jesus simply failed to prove himself.
But enough of that. All we need to worry about is that we have to obey God so that when we die we can go to heaven and spend ETERNITY worshipping him, looking at him, praying to him and generally stroking his ego. I'm not sure why would anyone actually wish this - but just in case you need someone to worship and serve 24/7 give me a shout (females only).
Satan on the other hand will torture us and make us burn in flames for eternity... or so the Bible claims. Yes, again, God's book claims that his enemy will be nasty to us. The same oh-so-generous God who promises he'll let us give him a blow-job every morning for eternity provided we refrain from doing anything useful with our lives. How could we possibly NOT trust God's word on what Satan will do to us?
So what's the conclusion to all this? Well I think it's pretty clear that we should all simply become Satanists.
COUNTER ARGUMENT:
I think the premise of yours is possibly flawed. You assume God didn't want them to gain knowledge and development. It doesn't say that anywhere. He just tells them it was forbidden. It's natural to infer that he didn't want it, but he never said it was a bad or wrong thing, like he does with other rules.
He just told them it was forbidden, which we can assume it was. Why is it forbidden? Because they need to make a choice by their own freewill. It wasn't endorsed.
If God told them to do it, they would be following his orders (like they had been) and not choosing of their own will, so God would not be allowed to do that (he'd be breaking prime directive, which you can't do if you're God).
If God just told them it was "okay" to do it, as in "a viable option", he'd still be breaking the rule by influencing them to do it, branding it as "okay" by him. They needed to choose and accept full responsibility for whatever results came of their new choices/advancement (which is the plan-- why they were put there to begin with).
So Lucifer had to come along, seeing the possible benefit to himself and sell it his way. Since Lucifer didn't have a position of authority over them (they were sworn to God), he could get away with it and not be breaking the rule of influence, whereby they could still make the choice and have it be their own.
At least that's my own understanding, and how I was taught it. Anyone else hear it this way?
RESPONSE TO THE COUNTER ARGUMENT:
Can a baby distinguish benevolent and malevolent intentions between two opposing adults?
Assuming primitive humans actually witnessed a conflict between two opposing superior races/species/factions, how would they determine which were benevolent or malevolent? It would be impossible, especially assuming they were being influenced/persuaded by both.
How do we know that the "Satan" race didn't want what was best for mankind and didn't actually win the "holy war"?
So it would have been acceptable if humans independently made the choice to develop intellect but not under influence?
How would a being decide to develop intellect without exercising intellect in the first place? You cannot make a decision without first reasoning, you cannot reason without first having intellect.
The whole topic discussed to death here:
http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f48/question-christians-1871753/Also I want to note:
I DIDN"T COME UP WITH THIS IDEA.
Topic: Question to Theists!!!