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.

>> ^chilaxe:

Ha. Well, if you can't disprove that the jury was significantly composed of ethnic minorities, it will be tacit admission that asking questions is a useful part of using our brains.


So as long as you just keep throwing out questions we'll have to keep answering them until your satisfied? No, you and your questions don't matter.

Ha. Well, if you can't disprove that the jury was significantly composed of ethnic minorities, it will be tacit admission that asking questions is a useful part of using our brains.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^chilaxe:
It's one thing to uncritically accept narratives you're fed (I understand most people are like that), but to try to discourage others from asking basic questions is taking the role of unquestioning drone a bit too seriously.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^chilaxe:
I'm glad everyone is getting on board now with the Stand Your Ground law, but it seems like we only have a narrative that's 100% from one side of the story.
Since both the defendant and the prosecution are representing African Americans, and they live in an African American area, the jury was probably mostly African American, right? If so, why were these African Americans racist against her? The article says it only took the jury 12 minutes to decide.

A whole lot of assumptions you're making.


I thought your questions weren't really questions, just bullshit.

@HadouKen24 - 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.

Music in video is composed by:Tilman Sillescu, Chris William Woods, and Scott P. Schreer.....titled "Take It Outside"

http://freeplaymusic.com/search/category_search.php?t=v&i=1862>> ^Samaelsmith:

Anyone know what the music is?

the song was composed for the Fincher remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

Damn dude! I used to think I knew how to search the net. Nice work, and I thank you for the info.

These were submitted in the hope of finding just such info, more than any hope they'd get sifted. So I owe you one now. LOL
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Electronic Pop Indie band from Lisbon, Portugal.

They have a youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/bangguru and their website is accessible using the archive.org internet wayback machine (it has been defunct since 2007) -
<a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070806143530/<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bangguru.com/">http://www.bangguru.com/">http://web.archive.org/web/20070806143530/http://www.bangguru.com/

From the bio on that archived site:

The Portuguese musician João Pico formed BANGGURU in December 2003. Featuring J.Pico (guitar, programming) , Marisa Fortes (voice, lyrics), Pedro Henriques (voice, lyrics), João Hora (programming) and José Dias (guitar). The group presents a multi-oriented electronic pop music and is working on their second album.

João Pico was born in the early '70s. He attended the Hot Clube de Portugal and several musical projects sprang up from this invariable interest in music. He is presently working as an image editor in a TV network.

Marisa Fortes was born in the late '70s. she had singing lessons in Academia de Amadores de Música de Lisboa. She has a degree in Portuguese and English Literature and is presently working as a teacher.

Pedro Henriques was born in the early ‘70s, he attended the Academia de Amadores de Música de Lisboa and studied Archeology. He is presently working as a technician in a TV network.

João Hora was born in the late ‘70s, he has a degree in Physics and he is a music composer since the early ‘90s. He is presently working as an audio technician.

José Dias was born in the early ‘70s, he has a degree in Portuguese Literature, he is a musician as well as a composer. He is a teacher and he also works in a Portuguese dance music magazine as a jazz reviewer.

Electronic Pop Indie band from Lisbon, Portugal.

They have a youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/bangguru and their website is accessible using the archive.org internet wayback machine (it has been defunct since 2007) -
http://web.archive.org/web/20070806143530/http://www.bangguru.com/

From the bio on that archived site:

The Portuguese musician João Pico formed BANGGURU in December 2003. Featuring J.Pico (guitar, programming) , Marisa Fortes (voice, lyrics), Pedro Henriques (voice, lyrics), João Hora (programming) and José Dias (guitar). The group presents a multi-oriented electronic pop music and is working on their second album.

João Pico was born in the early '70s. He attended the Hot Clube de Portugal and several musical projects sprang up from this invariable interest in music. He is presently working as an image editor in a TV network.

Marisa Fortes was born in the late '70s. she had singing lessons in Academia de Amadores de Música de Lisboa. She has a degree in Portuguese and English Literature and is presently working as a teacher.

Pedro Henriques was born in the early ‘70s, he attended the Academia de Amadores de Música de Lisboa and studied Archeology. He is presently working as a technician in a TV network.

João Hora was born in the late ‘70s, he has a degree in Physics and he is a music composer since the early ‘90s. He is presently working as an audio technician.

José Dias was born in the early ‘70s, he has a degree in Portuguese Literature, he is a musician as well as a composer. He is a teacher and he also works in a Portuguese dance music magazine as a jazz reviewer.

Europa has a thick layer of ice, maybe a few or several miles thick, under which is a very deep liquid ocean, but "its bulk density suggests that it is similar in composition to the terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of silicate rock." According to the researchers, "GJ1214b’s radius could be explained by a bulk composition consisting of an ice-rock core surrounded by a H/He/H₂O envelope that has a water mass fraction of 50-85%."

GJ1214b is a giant ball of water 2.7 times the Earth's diameter (Uranus is about 4 times, Saturn about 9). The water must be (tens of) thousands of miles deep. There's nothing like it in our system. I can't even begin to imagine what happens to water at that kind of depth and pressure. What bizarre properties it must have. They mention superfluids and hot ice in the article, but I suspect it's even weirder.
>> ^gwiz665:
Isn't Europa actually made almost entirely of ice? Europa the moon around Jupiter, I believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28moon%29

>> ^westy:

This is just annoying , Yes its possible for sum one to compose general music around random notes.
seems like a mastabatory celebration of the protentoise interpretation of what a piano is.


Well I, for one, completely agree with westy. Ms. Kronenberg's arrangement of this piece belies the typical human ignorance involved when trying to project the metaphysical onto the postmodern darkness of the everyday conditional object. Her lack of finesse when dealing with the emotional spectrum involved with the derivatives of dialectical emotional power is clumsy at best. At worst it becomes a maladroit nightmare of unresolved, vernal weltschmerz.

Additionally, my balls can play the key-fiddle better than this chump.

>> ^westy:

This is just annoying , Yes its possible for sum one to compose general music around random notes.
seems like a mastabatory celebration of the protentoise interpretation of what a piano is.


These notes are not that random - it's a complete redub. A lot of the note clusters the eye picks up wouldn't make sense in terms of the audio if any of those were actually notes that the baby was playing. The note velocities and pedal work also don't match. Note there's no ambient noise, nor sound of the baby cooing or laughing.

Also, maybe lighten up: it's only a cute baby video.

LOL!!!
In reply to this comment by westy:
This is just annoying , Yes its possible for sum one to compose general music around random notes.

seems like a mastabatory celebration of the protentoise interpretation of what a piano is.

This is just annoying , Yes its possible for sum one to compose general music around random notes.

seems like a mastabatory celebration of the protentoise interpretation of what a piano is.

"Could this be the beginning of the end for NK's "bamboo curtain?""

Not at all. Dear Leader composed this song.
.
.
.
When he was 5 years old.

"The Nokia tune (also called Grande Valse on old Nokia mobile phones) is a phrase from a composition for solo guitar, Gran Vals, by the Spanish classical guitarist and composer Francisco Tárrega, written in 1902." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_tune