If you discovered God didn't exist, would you still want to be moral?

If you discovered God didn't exist, would you still want to be a good person?


  • Total voters
    49

CrystalDragon

Well-Known Member
Apr 28, 2016
3,119
1,664
US
✟56,251.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Why on Earth would Satan want people to go to Hell if he didn't HATE people? Satan is hate, period. He hates things that are good, he hates love, he hates God, he hates forgiveness.

Is there anything that says Satan wants people to go to hell? As far as I know the Bible never mentions anything like that.

I don't guess there is really a point in arguing with you. For some reason, you wish to believe that God is cruel and Satan is just deceptive.

I suppose that was bad wording on my part. I was showing that views on God and Satan changed over time.

What is the end of Satan's deception? Hell. If I tricked you by defrauding you of money- well the end would be a loss of material goods. You'd say, what a deceptive jerk! But the end of Satan's deceptions are Hell- the eternal damnation of immortal souls.

He is not just a nasty, jerk.

Again, where is it at any point in the Bible that Satan wants to deceive people so they go to Hell? I'm not debating Satan's badness, I'm debating on exactly how much of Satan's badness has direct historical and biblical support and how much is just overinflated conjecture.

As far as the serpent not being Satan, the most probable explanation is the Satan inhabited the body of the serpent. Demons are able to inhabit bodies of animals as well as people as evidenced when Jesus cast the demons out of the man and into the swine in Gad.

The Bible clearly teaches that it was Satan that deceived Eve.

If that had been the case, it would have said so. In the case of the man and the swine, it says that the man was possessed by demons and they were cast into the swine. If Satan had possessed the serpent, the narrative would have said so. But by all indication it just says it was a serpent—the text outright just states it was a serpent and was the craftiest of the beasts of the field. And what would be the point of cursing snakes to slither on the ground if that one was Satan?

This is what Jesus says about Satan: John 8:42-44 "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but He sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father, the Devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do."

Now, here is the interesting bit about Satan- "He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there was no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Who did Satan murder in the beginning? It was not the fallen angels, they became demons. They did not die. He murdererd Adam and Eve.

A entity who hates people, love, goodness, beauty, forgiveness. Anything good, he hates.

Again, that was in the New Testament, hundreds of years after Genesis, when the view of God and Satan and good and evil changed. Ever heard of the game Telephone? People can get sentences and meaning confused or changed with 10 people in ten minutes. Multiply that with thousands of people over hundreds of years. Genesis itself clearly states the serpent was nothing more than a serpent. As I pointed out, in the Old Testament there were points where God sent evil and lying spirits because He was in charge of both good and evil at the time. By the later parts of the Old and fully in the New, God was seen as being in charge of all-good while Satan was in charge of everything bad.

Again, with your last sentence it's more conjecture than anything. Possibly accurate conjecture, but there's nothing explicitly stating in the Bible that Satan hates people, love, good, beauty, forgiveness, etc. At least, not in a complete and total every-fiver-of-his-being-is-just-that extent.

Do you not know of his utter contempt of mankind? He flat out tells God that Job only serves Him to get a reward. He has no concept of love, it is foreign to him.

I do not mean to be harsh, but it is very strange to read someone attacking the goodness of God and questioning the evil of Satan. It seems topsy turvy to me.

Yes, he flat out does tell God that Job only serves Him to get a reward, but how does that equal "having no concept of love"? Frankly since Job had all that blessing from God, and given the pridefulness of some people, I would think that thought would come up to more than one person and not just Satan. Maybe even some of Job's family members thought that. But then again, we can't know, that would be just conjecture.

As for the latter part, you misunderstand my point, or perhaps I didn't make it clear enough.

By calling Satan a "deceptive jerk", I wasn't meaning to imply that Satan wasn't evil or anything. What I was intending to mean was that Satan's mannerisms as portrayed in the Bible (what little we get) are evil and deceiving, but not "in opposition to absolutely anything relating to people or God or goodness".

Let's look at a different metaphor. Say there are two different universes, both of which involve a meteor hitting Earth of different sizes. The first, Meteor 1, is smaller, while Meteor 2 is larger.

In the first universe, Meteor 1 hits Earth. It causes an impact crater, and many die from the impact, but it doesn't destroy all life, or even most of it. Humanity survives, we go on. There's an impact, but it's not Earth-shattering.

In the second universe, Meteor 2 crashes into Earth with such a force that it ends up shattering the Earth to pieces, instantly killing all life, having some parts of the former Earth crash into the moon causing the moon to either meet a similar fate or become unrecognizable, etc. And all that's left of the Earth is just a bunch of dust and fragments that float around in space forever.

In this scenario, the Earth represents all good things. The Meteor 1 scenario represents closer to what the Bible actually depicts about Satan. The Meteor 2 scenario is similar to what you're saying (hating absolutely everything to do with people/God/all things good) which is more based on conjecture and hearsay.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Keath

Active Member
Apr 21, 2017
104
35
Ft Lauderdale
✟12,260.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I've heard it said that countries that are more atheistic are more peaceful.
Well, Jesus did come to bring a dividing sword and not peace. So that is quiet possible. So to speak, ignorance is bliss; so once you really start to point out human sinfulness, discord and hatred is a natural outcome as Jesus experienced. Why because people don't want to give up their sinful ways.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Galatea
Upvote 0

CrystalDragon

Well-Known Member
Apr 28, 2016
3,119
1,664
US
✟56,251.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I agree and I've already pointed out that it's a fallacious argument. Atheists wouldn't use it, and theists of any stirpe can't use it effectively.

Atheists would never use the argument because they already have an answer they're satisfied with: Man is able to develop acceptable morals on his own.

Christians--who necessarily believe both that God exists and that God is the basis for all morality--can't effectively hypothesize a world without those two premises.

Regarding the end, clearly most of the people who voted don't think that's the case because they clearly can believe in being moral even if God didn't exist.


I think it is pretty in the right direction. A saint once said, 'A poor miserable, wretched soul' I am. And through this, miserable because nothing good happens for a person. And then something shows up and makes us happy by fulfilling our carnal sin desires. Then by luck we obtain more and more and it doesn't go away. Our standards and expectations start to rise and we get used to it. We get praise and popularity and we get used to that. Then someone comes and treads on our toe and we put them to death. Everyone says, who is he to tread on your toe. So how can we assure that this path of arrogance in the direction we will be headed? Because if we think it was not given from God, our egos are sure to rise and inflate. There is no one but me that did this. Ie all this praise, it must be me. Why else would I get it and someone else not. Could it be luck? I doubt it, because it keeps happening to me. The countless people, one after the other that lifts me up high.

So yes, I think without God one would get corrupted. But I am still reflecting on this.


"Without God one would get corrupted"?

I've seen some atheists have a better sense of morality than some Christians here.
 
Upvote 0

Galatea

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2016
2,257
1,891
44
Alabama
✟70,081.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Is there anything that says Satan wants people to go to hell? As far as I know the Bible never mentions anything like that.



I suppose that was bad wording on my part. I was showing that views on God and Satan changed over time.



Again, where is it at any point in the Bible that Satan wants to deceive people so they go to Hell? I'm not debating Satan's badness, I'm debating on exactly how much of Satan's badness has direct historical and biblical support and how much is just overinflated conjecture.



If that had been the case, it would have said so. In the case of the man and the swine, it says that the man was possessed by demons and they were cast into the swine. If Satan had possessed the serpent, the narrative would have said so. But by all indication it just says it was a serpent—the text outright just states it was a serpent and was the craftiest of the beasts of the field. And what would be the point of cursing snakes to slither on the ground if that one was Satan?



Again, that was in the New Testament, hundreds of years after Genesis, when the view of God and Satan and good and evil changed. Ever heard of the game Telephone? People can get sentences and meaning confused or changed with 10 people in ten minutes. Multiply that with thousands of people over hundreds of years. Genesis itself clearly states the serpent was nothing more than a serpent. As I pointed out, in the Old Testament there were points where God sent evil and lying spirits because He was in charge of both good and evil at the time. By the later parts of the Old and fully in the New, God was seen as being in charge of all-good while Satan was in charge of everything bad.

Again, with your last sentence it's more conjecture than anything. Possibly accurate conjecture, but there's nothing explicitly stating in the Bible that Satan hates people, love, good, beauty, forgiveness, etc. At least, not in a complete and total every-fiver-of-his-being-is-just-that extent.



Yes, he flat out does tell God that Job only serves Him to get a reward, but how does that equal "having no concept of love"? Frankly since Job had all that blessing from God, and given the pridefulness of some people, I would think that thought would come up to more than one person and not just Satan. Maybe even some of Job's family members thought that. But then again, we can't know, that would be just conjecture.

As for the latter part, you misunderstand my point, or perhaps I didn't make it clear enough.

By calling Satan a "deceptive jerk", I wasn't meaning to imply that Satan wasn't evil or anything. What I was intending to mean was that Satan's mannerisms as portrayed in the Bible (what little we get) are evil and deceiving, but not "in opposition to absolutely anything relating to people or God or goodness".

Let's look at a different metaphor. Say there are two different universes, both of which involve a meteor hitting Earth of different sizes. The first, Meteor 1, is smaller, while Meteor 2 is larger.

In the first universe, Meteor 1 hits Earth. It causes an impact crater, and many die from the impact, but it doesn't destroy all life, or even most of it. Humanity survives, we go on. There's an impact, but it's not Earth-shattering.

In the second universe, Meteor 2 crashes into Earth with such a force that it ends up shattering the Earth to pieces, instantly killing all life, having some parts of the former Earth crash into the moon causing the moon to either meet a similar fate or become unrecognizable, etc. And all that's left of the Earth is just a bunch of dust and fragments that float around in space forever.

In this scenario, the Earth represents all good things. The Meteor 1 scenario represents closer to what the Bible actually depicts about Satan. The Meteor 2 scenario is similar to what you're saying (hating absolutely everything to do with people/God/all things good) which is more based on conjecture and hearsay.
Why do you question the veracity of the New Testament, but not the Old Testament? To me, if I were to question one, it would be the Old Testament, because of the distance of time.

You have kind of thrown down the gauntlet, so to speak, so I am going to do an independent study of Satan and find out where and when he is mentioned in the Old Testament. It may take me a while, however. Also, Satan in the Bible is referred to under different names, Apollyon, Beezelbub, the Destroyer, the Evil one, etc. So I am not sure you will accept these passages as I read you do not accept Lucifer as being Satan.

I do believe in the New Testament as well as Old, and I believe Jesus when He said Satan is a murderer and a liar, going about as a roaring lion- seeking whom he may destroy.

I maintain that Satan is hate, and comprises all the negative virtues. He is the opposite of God. I also maintain that Satan hates people and seeks to turn people away from the truth in Christ Jesus.

He does not love, and hates all things beautiful.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,258
20,263
US
✟1,473,800.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Regarding the end, clearly most of the people who voted don't think that's the case because they clearly can believe in being moral even if God didn't exist.

Those people wouldn't try to use the argument that some form of morality would not exist without God.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,258
20,263
US
✟1,473,800.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why do you question the veracity of the New Testament, but not the Old Testament? To me, if I were to question one, it would be the Old Testament, because of the distance of time.

You have kind of thrown down the gauntlet, so to speak, so I am going to do an independent study of Satan and find out where and when he is mentioned in the Old Testament. It may take me a while, however. Also, Satan in the Bible is referred to under different names, Apollyon, Beezelbub, the Destroyer, the Evil one, etc. So I am not sure you will accept these passages as I read you do not accept Lucifer as being Satan.

I do believe in the New Testament as well as Old, and I believe Jesus when He said Satan is a murderer and a liar, going about as a roaring lion- seeking whom he may destroy.

I maintain that Satan is hate, and comprises all the negative virtues. He is the opposite of God. I also maintain that Satan hates people and seeks to turn people away from the truth in Christ Jesus.

He does not love, and hates all things beautiful.

I would suggest that Satan's role and position changed with the human advent of Christ. Most people tend to consider Satan's "fall" as happening pre-creation. However, as I read Revelation 12 (and looking at some other scriptures), I firmly believe Satan's fall from heaven occurred during Christ's life on earth. When Jesus said, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10), I think He was referencing Revelation 12:7-9, and that might have been some time while He was on earth.

And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Notice that the leader of the loyal angels is Michael. Where was Christ? I'm thinking Christ was on earth at the time, because earlier verses place this war in heaven squarely into the Church age.

I think Satan had a "place in heaven" prior to Christ's human advent, and we see him operating in that place in Job, 2 Chronicles 18, and 1 Kings 22. The word "satan" means "adversary" in the sense of a prosecuting attorney in court, and we see his role in Revelation 12: "...the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night," which is the role we see Satan playing in Job.

But I believe Christ's advent changed that situation, something Satan did not immediately recognize until after Christ's wilderness temptations. When Christ came to earth as a human, I think Satan supposed that made Christ subject to him--thus the wilderness temptations and Jesus setting Satan in his place. As Revelation 12 says:

Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death."
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

Galatea

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2016
2,257
1,891
44
Alabama
✟70,081.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I would suggest that Satan's role and position changed with the human advent of Christ. Most people tend to consider Satan's "fall" as happening pre-creation. However, as I read Revelation 12 (and looking at some other scriptures), I firmly believe Satan's fall from heaven occurred during Christ's life on earth. When Jesus said, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10), I think He was referencing Revelation 12:7-9, and that might have been some time while He was on earth.

And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Notice that the leader of the loyal angels is Michael. Where was Christ? I'm thinking Christ was on earth at the time, because earlier verses place this war in heaven squarely into the Church age.

I think Satan had a "place in heaven" prior to Christ's human advent, and we see him operating in that place in Job, 2 Chronicles 18, and 1 Kings 22. The word "satan" means "adversary" in the sense of a prosecuting attorney in court, and we see his role in Revelation 12: "...the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night," which is the role we see Satan playing in Job.

But I believe Christ's advent changed that situation, something Satan did not immediately recognize until after Christ's wilderness temptations. When Christ came to earth as a human, I think Satan supposed that made Christ subject to him--thus the wilderness temptations and Jesus setting Satan in his place. As Revelation 12 says:

Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death."
I have never heard of this interpretation before now. Like many people, I believe the Luke 10 passage, Jesus was referring to Satan's fall before the recreation of the Earth. I subscribe to Gap theory, so I believe Satan's fall was sometime between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

In the passage about the fall of Satan and his angels, the reason why I believe Jesus was not involved and Michael was the captain is that God was "hands off". This would include God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. What I mean is this: that God was giving the angels the chance to decide whether they would go with Satan or stay with Him. It was a fight amongst the angels, in other words, and not God's fight.

I think your interpretation is interesting, but not one I would personally subscribe to, although the timeframe of the fall of Satan is certainly a secondary or even tertiary doctrine and something Christians can agree to disagree about.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,258
20,263
US
✟1,473,800.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have never heard of this interpretation before now. Like many people, I believe the Luke 10 passage, Jesus was referring to Satan's fall before the recreation of the Earth. I subscribe to Gap theory, so I believe Satan's fall was sometime between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

In the passage about the fall of Satan and his angels, the reason why I believe Jesus was not involved and Michael was the captain is that God was "hands off". This would include God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. What I mean is this: that God was giving the angels the chance to decide whether they would go with Satan or stay with Him. It was a fight amongst the angels, in other words, and not God's fight.

I think your interpretation is interesting, but not one I would personally subscribe to, although the timeframe of the fall of Satan is certainly a secondary or even tertiary doctrine and something Christians can agree to disagree about.

Revelation 12 pegs itself squarely in the Church Age--there really isn't any other honest way to interpret that.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,398
15,481
✟1,107,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes, I would still live a moral life. There are morals with athiests, as well as religions without a "god" such as Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism. There is no reason to think that without God we would not have morals, evidence shows that the concept of morality (call it karma or whatever) develops in civilizations without our understanding of God.
Why do you think that people, civilizations, need to understand God in order for God to have an effect on them?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: CrystalDragon
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,398
15,481
✟1,107,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Another example would be how much Christian churches vary in their stances on abortion, homosexuality, divorce, or a host of other issues.

I'm not saying that Christianity doesn't offer some guidelines, but they are very vague. "Love your neighbor" is indeed very vague.
Because churches vary doesn't mean the God does.

I don't find 'Love your neighbor, as yourself.' vague at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrystalDragon
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tampasteve

Pray for peace in Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Angels Team
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
May 15, 2017
25,359
7,327
Tampa
✟775,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why do you think that people, civilizations, need to understand God in order for God to have an effect on them?
I don't necessarily think that. The original question was "If God didn't exist would you still want to be moral". So I based my answer on the assumption that God did not exist. All of these follow on answers of "well God does exist", or "God has to exist" are missing the point of the initial question, IMO. I believe God exists and works everywhere, in all civilizations, but that was not the initial question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,258
20,263
US
✟1,473,800.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't necessarily think that. The original question was "If God didn't exist would you still want to be moral". So I based my answer on the assumption that God did not exist. All of these follow on answers of "well God does exist", or "God has to exist" are missing the point of the initial question, IMO. I believe God exists and works everywhere, in all civilizations, but that was not the initial question.

Inasmuch as the vast majority of non-believers do obey a moral code, if a Christian answers that question "No," then that Christian is inherently more evil than the average atheist.
 
Upvote 0

PhantomGaze

Carry on my wayward son.
Aug 16, 2012
407
109
✟29,450.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Not a problem at all, in fact this other post I'm responding to here will allow me to elaborate on it. If you need any more clarification just let me know.

This may have been an oversight, but you've neglected to reference the sources I requested. I'm curious though, with reference to the Iron Chariots, how would you respond to the challenge that the nature of God's aide to Israel has been viewed as conditional upon Israel's obedience to God?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0