The Greatest Story Never Told

January 6, 2013 • 11:31 am

Well, I couldn’t have hoped for a better piece of art than this, for it shows the Apocalyptic Battle Between Good and Evil starring Richard Dawkins as the Antichrist, who has LOLcats with laser eyes as his evil minions. And Paris Hilton wannabees! The hilarious piece is by artist Ian C. Pool and some collaborators, and it’s called “The Greatest Story Ever Told,” depicted in a series of six images (click on the first one and then go to “next”).

Reader Peter saw the original in an art exhibition in Brisbane, and forwarded me the story:

Satan’s first step is to make a pact with Dawkins and enlisting him as his ‘Anti-Christ’. Knowing that, as an atheist, Dawkins doesn’t believe in him, Satan offers to make him a successful author by giving him ‘proof’ that God doesn’t exist so that he can write his bestsellers. Dawkins’s cockiness at doing a deal in which he seemingly can’t lose (as he ‘knows’ that Hell doesn’t exist), makes him easy prey for the ‘Master of Lies’.

Jesus easily escapes (after a while), but the Anti-Christ and his legion of atheists is ready and the battle for humanity begins. The clones have the (Pine) Apple iPhone for weapons; the massive (and distinctly not cute) LOL Cats have eye lasers.

Here are two of the images:

Picture 2

Picture 3

There’s lots more; go have a look!

66 thoughts on “The Greatest Story Never Told

    1. That was my reaction too. “Believers” are so used to swallowing lies wholesale (the bigger, the more credible) that a good many will think this is for serious.

  1. Huh. Could I ask Jerry or the proprietor of the WEIT website to put a “NSFW” tag on such art in the future?

      1. Sorry: it just stands for “not safe for work.” I know its Sunday, but sometimes I pop back in at lunch to check entries I’ve missed. I suppose if nudity is reserved for Sunday posts I’ll know to be careful.

        1. Yes, I know what it stands for. I just a bit surprised that something like this might be confused with pornography.

          1. It’s got people of both genders in it, and the female ones aren’t barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen sink. Of course it’s pornography! I can’t tell from the pictures if the females can actually read and/or write, but if they can, then it should be classified as extreme pornography.
            If I had a workplace whose NSFW policies threw a wobbler at something like this, I’d be looking for a new employer, PDQ. You’d never know when the Thought Police were going to come knocking on^H^H^H through the door.

        1. Somehow I don’t think that cat got taped up with an escape kit in “error”!
          Would have been one very unhappy moggy!

  2. The Parises are the good guys? Really? That’s just weird. She is full of new age woo but hardly the saviour of Christianity I would have thought. Oh well, that’s art for you.

    1. Well the press turned against the Parises after building them up. They do that with all the celebs. Gamaliel Paris for example presented an argument against killing the apostles

      Yet all we remember these days is the Hilton Horde trying to trap JC as in Matthew 19:3

      The Parises also came unto him, testing him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

  3. Somehow the art panel narrative reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke’s Star Child

    The Sentinel / Guardian Angel / Childhood’s End / 2001

      1. I had the same thought and shooed it away, fast. When I was a teen, I read that book. It was my first Clarke, but it scared me so, that it was also my last.

        1. Which book? I assume you mean the short story ‘The Sentinel’ ? (“We have broken the glass on the fire alarm, now all we can do is wait”**.)

          Yes Clarke did do some very… effective short stories. ‘The Nine Million Names of God’ or ‘A Walk In The Dark’ come to mind. (I’m not suggesting them to you, Docatheist, unless your tolerance for scary has increased).

          OTOH, 2001 (which the Star Child image probably most relates to) isn’t particularly scary, IIRC.

          **Quoted from memory, so probably inaccurate.

        2. Don’t let one bad experience with ACC put you off. Clarke is not considered one of the greatest SF authors in the history of the genre without good reason. Whether he’s “better” than Asimov, or Verne, or Ellison, or Niven, or … is a subject for discussion. Come to think of it, next time I’m on Edinburgh, I must arrange to stalk Charlie Stross to his normal pub and buy him a pint, because he’s doing a pretty good job of ascending into the Pantheon himself.

  4. In the “Aftermath” did anyone spot that Jesus is a dead ringer for Prince Charles? I always thought there was something rather odd about Charlie boy.

  5. That first panel above,it looks like the Flying Spaghetti Monster an his noodly appendages is at it again. To the left side of Dawkins. Interesting pic’s.

        1. Aren’t the holes in the colander sufficient evidence of the existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn? How else could the holes possibly have formed?

      1. Yeah, I initially took the colander for a symbol, but having looked through the other images in the HGC galleries (cool stuff on the whole), I noticed that the same(?) colander figures in his other series’ as part of a kitchenware/spaceship motif. Maybe it’s just a happy coincidence?

  6. Unfortunately the amount of traffic generated by your post has crashed the HolyGreenCow site, but extra bandwidth has been applied for so that the work can be seen by more people.

    The satirical nature of the work (The Greatest Story Ever Told 2) is self evident, making fun of the current trend toward atheism by the Y generation.

    It’s a sequel to the Hollywood Bible epic and shows what a silly world we live in, scarily silly sometimes…

    Cheers
    Ian (HolyGreenCow)

    1. So are you the artist that created this artwork? Where did you get the idea from and how much do you follow the sceptical community? You certainly have a interesting imagination 🙂

      I saw your exhibition on the weekend and quite enjoyed it.

      1. Hi Peter,
        Looks like I have you to thanks for this 🙂
        I’m glad you got to see the work in person, it’s so much better as big prints.

        My inspiration came from my lack of understanding of Gen Y. I had read Dawkins ‘The Selfish Gene’ and seen a book by Jean Twenge called the Selfish Generation (about Gen Y). Something clicked in my head, so basically I did 6 months further research and the result is what you saw.

        I didn’t set out to make fun of Dawkins or Jesus, but the 50’s bible epics seemed like a great place to set my little satire. The Sunday Mail did a full page story on my work a few weeks ago, so I guess they got it too!

        I’m as sceptical as the next man, but I like to spread my scepticism evenly… So poor old Richard cops a little too. It’s all in good fun. 🙂

  7. Loved the symbolism of JC being crucified on a MacDonalds sign.

    But the LOLcats should surely be furnished by Jerry, rather than Richard Dawkins…?

    1. It was actually Dawkins and the Hilton clones being crucified on the giant Y – just to show that Dawkins and Hilton may both share a little penchant for consumerism 🙂

      1. Oops, sorry, didn’t look closely enough.

        I’m not at all sure that Richard Dawkins would approve of MacDonalds… for reasons of taste. But I have no evidence for that.

        1. Umm, was that a ‘Y’? I took it to be a broken MacDonalds sign. Unfortunately I can’t go back to check because of bandwidth limits…

        2. I think I’ve seen it mentioned (in an online clip before he gets into reading out some of his hate mail – in a sort of atheist Xmas party?) that he and the beauteous Lalla Ward are veggies.

  8. After reading this series of shots, I felt very very sad. The depictions are laughable, but incredibly cruel and unjust. How can ppl believe in this garbage and how can they say they are Christians, when they constantly denigrate individuals for simply not agreeing to the same silly stories they do? I really wanted to cry. 🙁

    1. Umm… duh? I’m having a little trouble figuring out who you’re shooting at.

      None of the commenters above would claim to be a Christian, and nobody ‘believes’ those pics anyway. They’re satire.

      1. I thought that would have been pretty clear. Who can beleive in such religious rubbish? Yes I know it’s satire. And pls don’t assume I don’t know. For u r guilty of arrogance. I find these images sickening due to religious zealot ism but u make me wonder about u now

        1. Well we seem to have a case of mutual incomprehension, because I definitely can’t figure out where you’re coming from. It certainly isn’t clear.

          It’s satire, nobody’s supposed to believe it. Oh, I said that before, didn’t I? I think it’s quite good satire actually, like most of the commenters seem to.

          1. Do us both us a favor and stop making comments. I am free to look t it any way I want to. I don’t have to go along wih your version or anyone else’s. just end it now

            1. The presumption is, if you make a comment, you may be prepared to back it up with argument. Or not, it’s your choice.

              Enough of this, I’m going for a swim.

              1. After reading this series of comments, I felt very very confused… This is really something.

              2. Not to argue the point with ‘Me’ further, I’d like to emphasise that I have enormous respect and admiration for Richard Dawkins, and so I think do most on this site. I’m curious whether Richard would find Ian’s satire funny.

              1. Look ppl this is why so many rationalists r hated. I don’t hVe to agree with all of u and I DONt have to argue a point. I simply thought the cartoon was negative towards a respected scientist and Someone I admire. Do not turn a simple emotion into an argument. Just leave it be. This is unnecssary

  9. Looks interesting. Unfortunately, the site is still overwhelmed and I have yet to see the others. I’m surprised this website is capable of such bandwidth carnage. It wasn’t picked up by PZ was it? Or perhaps the readership here is wider than I had supposed.

    Since I can’t view the remaining panels, I’ll have to exorcise my frustration by nit-picking these:

    “Dawkins’s LOL cats” perhaps?

    1. The site is back online now – nit pick away!! 🙂

      As far as the bandwidth carnage goes, i have received 16000 or more hits from this blog. So you must be doing something right!!

Leave a Reply