What Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence

[FaithIsFilth]

Shouldn't this line be changed to "When it comes to the supernatural, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"? What do you think? Do you like the line just as Hitch said it, or no?

We wouldn't dismiss the idea of corruption in politics, right? We wouldn't say that the only corruption that has ever happened, has been the corruption that has been proven. We all know that there has been a lot more corruption that what has been proven, and don't just dismiss the idea that more corruption has taken place because it can't entirely be proven. Another example is Hillary Clinton's email server. We don't know for sure whether it was hacked or not. Does that mean that we dismiss any claims saying that it was extremely likely that it was hacked because of how irresponsible she was with it, and just conclude that it wasn't hacked because it can't be proven? Do we just dismiss what all of the experts are saying, because they can't provide evidence showing that it was hacked? No. Of course we don't dismiss all of the experts. The experts claim that if it happened, which it likely did, we wouldn't know it. So, just because it can't be known for sure, we shouldn't automatically dismiss something. If something can't be known for sure at this time, dismissing it out of hand and concluding that it's wrong and never happened is not necessarily the right thing to do. Sometimes it can be a very stupid and naive thing to do.

Did Hitchens really mean this literally, or was he just talking about religious belief and things like that? The supernatural, because he seemed to always be debating a theist when he used this line. If it was about more than just the supernatural, I don't think Hitch was true to his own words. He supported the invasion of Iraq, and I would assume thought that there were some terrible things Saddam was doing to his own people that couldn't all be proven.

[Cavebear]

Shouldn't this line be changed to "When it comes to the supernatural, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"? What do you think? Do you like the line just as Hitch said it, or no?

We wouldn't dismiss the idea of corruption in politics, right? We wouldn't say that the only corruption that has ever happened, has been the corruption that has been proven. We all know that there has been a lot more corruption that what has been proven, and don't just dismiss the idea that more corruption has taken place because it can't entirely be proven. Another example is Hillary Clinton's email server. We don't know for sure whether it was hacked or not. Does that mean that we dismiss any claims saying that it was extremely likely that it was hacked because of how irresponsible she was with it, and just conclude that it wasn't hacked because it can't be proven? Do we just dismiss what all of the experts are saying, because they can't provide evidence showing that it was hacked? No. Of course we don't dismiss all of the experts. The experts claim that if it happened, which it likely did, we wouldn't know it. So, just because it can't be known for sure, we shouldn't automatically dismiss something. If something can't be known for sure at this time, dismissing it out of hand and concluding that it's wrong and never happened is not necessarily the right thing to do. Sometimes it can be a very stupid and naive thing to do.

Did Hitchens really mean this literally, or was he just talking about religious belief and things like that? The supernatural, because he seemed to always be debating a theist when he used this line. If it was about more than just the supernatural, I don't think Hitch was true to his own words. He supported the invasion of Iraq, and I would assume thought that there were some terrible things Saddam was doing to his own people that couldn't all be proven.

You use too many double negatives to make your arguments, therefore, I'm not going to not un-follow the reverse of what you don't oppositely say.