Ordway fans react to my book review

I think it's fair to say the reaction was hostile! Here are the highlights…

Comment from...	Comment	Observation
A Creationist	Your review is a rambling mess void of logical connections. Prove your points. Nothing you've said so far supports your position.	Ironically, nothing this person has said supports his position!
A Christian Apologist	JimC's tautologies and non-responses regarding on topic discussions are visible for all to witness!	Tautologies? Non-responses?
A Christian Apologist	You’re making the claim that Ordway was wrong so the burden of proof still rests with you. Bring up specific points here if you feel they support your position and we can discuss such.	I don’t remember saying she was "wrong." And my review contained specific points.  Which this person apparently doesn’t want to discuss!
A Christian Apologist	Please finally attempt to quote opposing perspectives honestly and respond on topic to such minus your "reinterpretations" and misdirections regarding such--thanks!	Er… what?!
A Creationist	JimC provided unconvincing arguments and utilized fallacious reasoning combined with condescending snobbery. As reviews go, it was poorly written and largely what you'd expect from an atheist with an axe to grind. The motto seem to be: Discredit the Christians no matter the means. A true Dawkins disciple.	Plenty of ad hominem, but again, nothing specific about the book review that I can respond to.
A Christian Apologist	You say that “Ordway was not exposed to all the atheist arguments.” This displays your personal prejudice and lack of honest scholarship.  This what she says…  "In college, I absorbed the idea that Christianity was historical curiosity, or a blemish on modern civilization, or perhaps both. My college science classes presented Christians as illiterate anti-intellectuals who, because they didn’t embrace Darwinism, threatened the advancement of knowledge. My history classes omitted or downplayed references to historical figures’ faith. At thirty-one years old, I was an atheist college professor–and I delighted in thinking of myself that way. I got a kick out of being an unbeliever; it was fun to consider myself superior to the unenlightened, superstitious masses, and to make snide comments about Christians.”	This gets confusing because “all the atheist arguments” is not a phrase that I used. It's a phrase the Christian Apologist used.    And the extract provided from the book fails to mention any exposure to atheist arguments.  It does however portray her as a rather gullible person who was easily influenced by some kind of antitheist college science teacher who used science calls to attack Christians.  And that makes me prejudiced? With a lack of honest scholarship?! I'm beginning to think this person hasn't read the book. It also seems the word “professor” has a different meaning in the USA to the UK. To me, a professor is the most senior rank in a faculty. At age 31, Ordway was certainly not a professor in that sense. She was a teacher.
A Christian Apologist	You say that  “her book makes it clear that she became religious because she needed religion. Not because of evidence. As with many people, it was emotionally driven.”  Once again, thanks for displaying your personal prejudice and lack of honest scholarship.  This is what she says… "Ordway was a trained academic without a history in religion. But she was no disinterested intellectual: 'There was something about the idea of faith that made it stick with me. I didn’t have faith, I didn’t want faith, but I felt compelled to have a good reason why not. I constructed an elaborate analogy for myself, one that I felt gave satisfying explanation of why ‘faith’ was impossible. . . I could not believe, no matter how much I might want to . . .I thought ‘faith’ was a meaningless word, that so-called believers were either hypocrites or self-deluded fools, and that it was a waste of time to consider any7 claim that Christians made about the truth. . . . I didn’t want to deal with that. Easier by far to read only books by atheists that told me what I wanted to hear: that I was smarter and more intellectually honest and morally superior than the poor, deluded Christians. I had built myself a fortress of atheism, secure against any attack by irrational faith.'"	So I’m being accused of prejudice and dishonest scholarship? As it happens, the Christian Apologist has copied his comments from a review of the book he found online. Honest scholarship! So as I suspected, he hasn’t even read the book. More honest scholarship LOL!  If that's not enough, the extract from the book (which has been copied from someone else's review) is not related in any way to the part of the book where she describes how she became religious.   Number 1 rule of book reviewing - read the book. LOL
A Creationist	You constantly twist facts to your agenda. You're entitled to your opinion Jim but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.	Well, so far it’s the Ordway fan club providing the opinions, and me providing the facts!
A Creationist	You have no idea if she had a challenge on the Kalam or not. She couldn't possibly outline every single step from atheism to Christianity. You are creating these statements out of thin air. Show from the book where she said she accepted the argument with out any challenge and show also where she said that she didn't explore the counter arguments.	According to her book she put no effort into researching alternatives to what she was told, including the Kalam argument. Everything she was told she just accepted if it felt right intuitively. That's how she describes it in her book in her own words. The idea is  not from thin air, but from her thin book. And that's not just my opinion - other reviewers have noticed too. It's just like the anti-Christian opinions she had at the start of the book. She just took those on board with no challenge and was then surprised to meet nice Christians! She seems quite gullible.
A Creationist	Considering your bias it's no wonder you're dealing with this topic in your usual dishonest manner.	Hmmm…  I seem to have hit a raw nerve…
A Born Again Christian	She should have been like you: hate us all always, 24/7. Do any atheists really give thought to their anti-Christian opinion? Ahem, I haven't noticed any on-2nd-thought atheists.	I don’t even understand this!
A Creationist	So now quoting a cherry picking of a reviewer is proof for your false claims? It's laughable	Hang on! I said that other reviewers shared my opinion, and I was asked to prove it. So I provided an extract form another review and I get attacked for quoting another reviewer!  LOL
A Creationist	Why not quote the other positive reviewers?	Because I was asked to quote a review that agreed with my opinion. Geez!
A Christian Apologist	You claim that she does not say she  had an atheist upbringing.  Well how about this… “I had never in my life said a prayer, never been to a church service. Christmas meant presents and Easter meant chocolate bunnies–nothing more.”	That’s not evidence of an atheist upbringing.  Could be Deist, or Agnostic, or Panthestic, etc.
A Christian Apologist	As a university professor, what is the basis of your claim that she is unfamiliar with counter arguments? An honest university education demands that one become familiar with counter arguments on just about any subject!	Seriously? Just about any subject? LOL  And not that it's relevant, but was she really a university professor?
A Creationist	You wrote a review and focused not on the context of the book but on the author. What do you say to that?	I say try reviewing an autobiography without focusing on the author!!
A Creationist	I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised when atheist JimC shared that he had read Ordway’s book: Not God’s Type. I knew he’d have issues with some of the content but that’s fine. As long as the issues are addressed honestly and fairly, we have a discussion.  But immediately upon visiting his blog page  http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/not-gods-type.html I knew this wasn’t going to be an unbiased review by Jim. Worse, it would likely be spattered with dishonest and misleading commentary.  It starts with the heading to Jim’s blog: "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has." Here Jim uses as his headline a quote from Martin Luther (you remember him, Martin Luther whom Jim labeled as an anti-Semite). First, the quote is out of context and quoted in such a way as to support Jim’s distorted view of Christianity and reason.  <additional 700 word on Martin Luther has been snipped>	I do wonder if I'm the only person in this discussion who did read it! He knew my review would be biased, dishonest and misleading without reading it.  Figures! Wow. Hundreds of words in reaction to my book review which fails to refer to my book review in any way.  Figures. Again!

Holly Ordway CV