"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
The assertion is a form of evidence. Testimony a formal written or spoken statement, especially one given in a court of law. Dictionary.com
In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Wikipedia
The statement, written or verbal, is in fact accessible to be a form of evidence. Evidence is intended to give validation one way or the other. The fact of evidence submitted does not mean the evidence is correct nonetheless it is evidence.
Some one asserting is evidence and to dismiss as if "not evidenced" needed only because of a verbal statement would be a wrong invalid dismissal with out evidence to dismiss because the assertion statement is a form of evidence.
Hitchens razor is illogical as is atheism.
IMHO, it's not a binary. Cases are dismissed due to insufficient evidence. Eyewitness testimony is admissible, but is open to examination, to include the credibility of the witness him/herself. In a properly functioning court of law, a witness may only testify on what he/she witnessed first hand, otherwise their report is inadmissible as hearsay.
Furthermore, a witness is not allowed to speculate as to the whys and wherefores; such guesswork amounts to an opinion and is inadmissible as conjecture. An assertion is only an opinion, and an unfounded assertion is made by one who is not in possession of any specific first hand knowledge or observations in support of his/her claim, and thus may be viewed as spurious.
Thus the original statement holds and is appropriate when considering most religions, which rely on dead witnesses and unsourced writings, as my avatar well understood.
“Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication—after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.”
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794