Is "Hitchens razor" true

>since its unsubstantiated then you must disregard it
No? The only paradox is in autoreferentially disregarding it.

Misused. What doesn't fulfill its burden of proof can be dismissed as in 'not taken into account as true', but not having evidence for an assertation in no way disproves said assertation (the way Hitchen's razor is commonly used - there is no evidence of God, therefore God doesn't exist).

to disprove it?

It's not paradoxical if you accept it as self-evident.

you don't understand paradoxes.
Step down.

It's called reductio ad absurdum you tard

but couldn't you also reverse the phrase like "what can be asserted without evidence should be refuted with evidence" and then just say "its self evident"

not an argument

Not at all, there's no actual contradiction.

>what can be asserted without evidence should be refuted with evidence
is kind of implied.
The idea is that it's logically permissible to deny an unsubstantiated claim simply by virtue of the fact that it is unsubstantiated. Having evidence to the contrary is a bonus.

what does deny/dismiss mean? Does it mean that without evidence you simply don't believe it, or it is altogether considered disproven until evidence is given

>hitchens' razor
this isn't even original to him, it's just a rephrasing of the burden of proof. why the fuck do people like this guy? I'm not much of a fan of any of the "new atheists" but hitchens in particular I can't stand to listen to. much of what I've heard him say isn't even an argument against the truth of religions, just anti-theism. he just comes across to me as a professional douche. why can't we have a famous atheist who is well-versed in the bible and other religious texts and can publicize refutations of them rather than old tired arguments against theism in general?

because he doesn't care for super critical scholarly arguments. thats boring. appeals to emotion get lots more followers and interest and $$$

Wouldn't that invalidate all moral premises?

Yes.

>Meanwhile there's no problem with him positing the rule without evidence: the paradox is in your camp.
well that's just obviously not true
according to the principle itself, it can be dismissed without evidence, and since it is offered without evidence, according to itself it can be dismissed

literally any kind of critical thinking does that

keeping in mind the distinction between not believing P and believing not-P, a charitable interpretation is
>you should not believe an assertion without evidence
and a really charitable interpretation is
>you should not believe an assertion without a reason

the former puts an evidential constraint on believing, whereas the latter just puts a minimal rational constraint on it (which evidentialists like the new atheists would interpret--wrongly--to be equivalent to the former)
but both of these are actually weaker than what i think is implied by hitchens' wording, which includes "dismissed"
"dismissing" a claim is stronger than just suspending belief in its truth; it implies something somewhere between not taking the claim seriously and assuming it is false or at least implausible
as well, the quote doesn't pertain to the abstract or the general but to specific concrete situations of debate; it's a practical suggestion of what to do when presented with a claim by a particular opponent
so a realistic interpretation, given the actual wording and some knowledge of the new atheists, would be
>for any claim your opponent offers without giving evidence for it, refuse to take it seriously (and perhaps go ahead and consider it improbable too)

and this is terrible advice for two general reasons:
(i) it implies an excessive (and excessively empirical) epistemic standard
(ii) it creates an infinite regress, making debates impossible (since you are advised not to take anything your opponent says seriously until he offers evidence, and the same applies to each evidential claim ad infinitum, so that you will never take anything your opponent says seriously)

Madame, I love thou
Go away Mcfedoria, you don't provide evidence

There's nothing to disprove as there is no actual evidence to support the assertation to begin with.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

No, If we wanted to be ontological autists we could argue that existence doesn't exist.
Do we dismiss everything predicated on the assertion that we do? i.e) literally fucking everything