Hey, Arsenal won a relatively recent match 9-0. They’re a great team, but one fantastic result doesn’t necessarily make you the best in the world (sadly ;)).
Then hooray!
Sorry, Rev, but 18-0 is the Patriot’s *record * so far this season, not the result of one match. But you Brits wouldn’t know much about real football. 
In that case I would say that Arsenal (somewhat) recently went 49 games without a loss. But I understand that real football of course has a lighter schedule, so a lack of a similar record is not entirely their fault.
Touché.
you’d have to watch their entire season, and know what kind of formula they’ve put together this year, between the brilliant coach, the goldenboy quarterback, defense - watching them play against tough teams who were just too weak in one area or another to win…
If they lose the superbowl, I’ll be floored to the ground. Floored!
I’m a hard agnostic about which football team is best; I don’t believe it can be known. 
Back to the subject at hand.
Films actually promoting atheism-Not that I can see
Television shows promoting atheism-Same
Bills proposed in Congress promoting atheism-Not seeing any
Presidential candidates pandering to atheists-you’ve got to be kidding
Agreed, with the caveat that there are scores of films and television shows that are not *anti-*atheist either, instead adopting a very hands-off approach to the subject.
Why should atheism be ‘promoted’…especially by the government? For that matter, how many highly theistic films or TV shows are ‘promoted’ (I agree the answer is going to be more than atheistic ones but it’s still a pretty small number).
Are there bills in congress promoting a heavy theistic agenda?
As for the Presidential hopefuls…well, you have me there. But then I’m unsure why they would pander to atheists since they make up a fairly small percentage of the citizens. They should pander to agnostics I’m thinking…
-XT
Using that definition, belief in the Easter Bunny is definitely on the rise. 
Are you saying it’s not?!? 
-XT
Having never seen a show or movie where belief in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus was portrayed as a bad thing, or even one that intimated that such characters dont actually exist, and having seen numerous movies that push the reverse opinion, I must then conclude that belief in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus is widespread to the point of unanimous agreement.
Unless it works differently for beliefs and properties that people seriously believe are worth actively supporting or denigrating, maybe?
Yeah, but that’s not BALANCE. For there to be balance, there would have to be no movies or TV shows promoting Christianity, and there are TONS of those. So, we have no atheist-promoting shows, many religiously neutral shows, and many shows that promote some brand of Christianity. Nope, that’s not balance at all.
To be fair, though, Penn and Teller’s Bullshit did have episodes that, while not promoting atheism, did say that both a literal interpretation of the bible and creationism, are well, bullshit, as well as episodes criticizing religious figures Ghandi, Mother Theresa and the Dali Lama, exorcisms and the possibility of miracles and signs from heaven.
Penn Jillete is a sanctimonious asshole. And that show had enough of its problems on its own.
Can I say that here? He’s not a doper, is he?
You know, of all the words that could be used to describe Penn Jillette, “sanctimonious” is probably about the last one I’d use. I think “contumacious” would be infinitely more apropos if I were to feel the need to describe the man.
And you say “asshole” as though it were a bad thing… 
As in, “I’m better than you because I have deemed you a fruitcake.” Perhaps sanctimonious isn’t quite the word I was after, so how’s obstinate, smug, self-righteous, manipulative, and obnoxious? Did I miss any? I’ll give you contumacious as well (and thank you for expanding my vocabulary).
Some assholes I can tolerate, but he is one whose shtick quickly became tiresome. I get the dichotomy of the “mute” and the blowhard, but IMHO he severely overcompensates.
“Manipulative”? I have trouble with seeing that one. He’s blunt to the point of rudeness. How is he manipulative?
Why “obstinate”? I’ve never heard anyone argue with him, let alone argue with him so successfully as to force the conclusion that for him to fail to change his position was merely being “obstinate”.
See now, I really “get” old Penn–he’s exactly the way I’d be if I were a great tall awkward gawk of a man. Maybe it doesn’t bother me because I agree that the people he’s talking to on that show really ARE fruitcakes and it kinda bugs me that we’re supposed to be silent and give tacit consent to chowderheaded opinions that have no basis in objective fact. Besides, it’s a TV show and those people agreed to be on it. You just don’t go on a debunking show that’s actually NAMED “Bullshit!” thinking it’s going to be all tolerance and lovey dovey meeting of the minds, y’know? If you do, it just proves you’re living in a fantasy land and are way too good at lying to yourself.
The other thing is that I’ve seen enough of both Penn and Teller in non-Bullshit related venues to realize that they’re both painfully intelligent, funny, idiosyncratic, and, in Teller’s case especially, damned sophisticated men. I love people like that so I’ll give them a lot of latitude in their personas–better snotty, smart, cutting, funny, confrontational assholes than those run of the mill mindless, stupid, jingoistic, rude confrontational yahoo assholes the entertainment media seem to churn out in endless droves. I guess I just prefer contumaciousness to contumely.
Besides, Bullshit! makes me laugh out loud and it makes me think, never more so than when I don’t agree with the premise of a given show. I go out finding cites to refute their points and always end up better informed and more sure of my position–or I end up changing my mind because they were right. Either way, it gets me off my ass…umptions!
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, specifically the Oolon Colluphid and Babel Fish entries