1 1

"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.

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.

Word 8 Nov 8

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


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

I like your information well enough even though you take the biblical route. I can speak for understanding biblical text in ways as well as having my personal "Revelations". It is why I no longer consider myself Christian.

I understand direct evidence. I understand situation of insufficient evidence given the time of evaluation at the time evidence is presented. I understand a miscommunication (giving or receiving) of understanding in transfering the evidence. Person giving evidence at the time doesn't articulate well, a correct understanding. Or the receiver does not process the information well.

But the point of my post is just at what the phrase says not the point of what it is intended to do.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Taking biblical route discussion, the major theme of biblical text is the power of words. Such as "Testimony of Jesus is spirit of prophecy "Revelations 19:10. What this statement of Hitchens is saying in my view, is that since the words spoken does not produce Harry Potter style whiz bang (supernatural deminstration) then the reciever can dismiss them with out whiz bang.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:550771
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.