I loved this video, well done and funny, and ironically makes the point that is the title of the song. I know they mean it to be tongue in cheek, but it ends up being a substantive criticism of a non-Theist position about reality, specifically how we explain the idea of beauty.
One of the strong arguments for the existence of God is the moral argument; morality is impossible in a naturalistic, materialistic universe. There is no foundation for a normative morality without the existence of a rational and moral God. Atheists usually counter the argument by saying: “not true, I am an atheist and I have morals.” Missing the point of the argument (or maybe in some way also affirming its truth) they appeal to their ability to understand and comprehend good and evil as an “atheist” as a defeater of the argument. The obvious counter to this “defeater” is that an atheists ability to comprehend good and evil does not disprove the existence of God but is actually dependent upon His existence – they borrow from theism here to establish the foundation for moral claims. It is like saying that we can have oranges without orange trees because I bought this orange at the grocery store and there was no orange tree in sight.
The same is true for the “aesthetic” argument made here unwittingly by the song. The arts have the same sort of quality as morality for the sake of an argument for the existence of God. Music and art have a transcendent quality to them that is impossible to explain really without the existence of a God who is both ordered and a creator. Aesthetics and beauty are rooted in these same ideas of creation, transcendence and the idea of an objective sense of beauty or what is universally pleasing as opposed to dissonant.
In this regard Atheists really have no good songs, and even the good songs that they sing are based on the borrowed principles of Theism.