I think that our disagreement centers around our differing opinion of the utility of religion. In my opinion, these transcendental states you speak of are not in any way dependent on a religious belief. It is true that many beautiful things have been created within the confines of religious experience. But almost all of the most profound thoughts, intricately beautiful music and profound works of literature I can think of are all written or composed in absence of religious inspiration. Sure, this is certainly a matter of opinion, but I do not think there is any denying that atheists can create beauty in their lives just as I don't deny that the religious can. Which begs the question, is it necessary? Sure many people have found inspiration in religion, however the ecstasies you speak of can just as easily be created by the biochemical effects of substances or - perhaps more healthily - the close ties of relationships or the beauty of nature.

So seeing as how beauty is not exclusively inspired by religion, I prefer my art to be entirely reality-based. And I think it's better that way. To me, knowing that that painting I am looking at, the music I am hearing or the book that I am reading has a long lineage of innovation and creativity traceable through the efforts of countless individual minds throughout time is far more interesting to me than the simple notion that someone contemplated an extremely ambiguous and enigmatic all powerful being and decided to write something about it.

Again, this is all a matter of opinion, but my point is that religion is not necessary for this transcendentalist beauty.

Which brings me to the video. I agree with you that religion is diverse and individuals typically lie along a continuum of adherence levels within each religious tradition. I also agree with you that it is far nicer when a Christian chooses to take most of the bible metaphorically, and as such has no reason to oppress homosexuals, shun scientific understanding and so on. What I do think, however, is that the step between calling yourself religious and taking most of the bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value and calling yourself an atheist and taking the entire bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value is a small and painless one.

Which is the whole point of this video.

This video is not directed at the fundamentalist Christians who hold to the literal teachings of the Bible. It is far too great a leap for them. It is directed towards people who have thought about their faith and concluded that they can not take certain parts of the bible as literal and authoritative, but still give biblical teachings some sort of privileged authority over other ideas put forth. There are many, but one of the main problems I see with this type of religion is that the privileged authority given to the bible tends to cause ignorance of other those other ideas that in reality have an equal opportunity at validity.

Which is why I posted the video.

Because it points out that applying a logical, reality-based analysis of the bible's claims (in this case, one that accepts the fact of evolution) will lead you to the conclusion that the overarching religious point of the bible is invalid. And it is simply attempting to nudge the liberal Christians who attempt to interpret the bible with a huge grain of salt just a little bit closer to atheism.

The fact is that an absence original sin means we don't need to be saved from it. Sure, we do sin and we need to do something about it, but if you are going to take the original sin as metaphorical (because evolution discredits the concept) then why should you take the biblically proposed remedy as literal? And if you're going to take the resurrection as a metaphorical assertion that you need to do this or that to improve your life and the lives of others, than why pay particular attention to that metaphorical assertion. To me, a someone who takes a vast majority of the bible as metaphorical but lives his or her life by it, is about the same as someone saying that they favor a Zizekian outlook on life - which is great and all, but again, it's limiting. There are plenty of ideas out there, go discover them and decide if they should shape your worldview!

Whether or not you think the above proposition is a better way of doing this or not, is up for debate. I think it's the way forward and videos like these help people move in that direction. They did for me.

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 4 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

good luck with the thoth deck bud.

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 3 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Thanks! I've fixed the embed.

In reply to this comment by HadouKen24:
Looks like that video was removed.

Found another link, though probably lower quality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilPTiwQIKGg (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRlB0CO81MI (part 2)

You are doing the right thing.

In reply to this comment by HadouKen24:
I live in Oklahoma. I will probably be making a phone call or two to the Oklahoma Highway Patrol tomorrow, and possibly my representatives, to express my dismay.

This is completely unacceptable.

woops did this as a profile reply, my bad

Weird Al is very conscious of copyright infringement. He seeks permission from every artist he parodies. If he doesn't get the permission, he doesn't do the song. And parody and satire sit slightly apart when it comes to copyright. And I doubt that Coldplay were attempting to spoof Satriani.

In reply to this comment by HadouKen24:
Even if Coldplay did "rip it off," so what?

Creative works are creative even if they borrow from other sources. What makes them creative is how they use those sources. Whether or not you think Coldplay is a very good band or very original, their use of the melody constitutes a new work, a new take on an old idea.

If we were to make this a big deal, we'd have to get rid of Weird Al Yankovic. A whole lot of classical music is right out; they borrowed from each other all the time, riffing on each others' themes. DJ's would be out of work. They practice their craft by remixing and juxtaposing the very recordings done by other musical artists.

Come on, people. Let's not squash what little culture America has.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.