Oh for god's sake, Hitchens's daft self-defeating evidence thing has a bloody Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor …
-
Seems that Hitchens is using a play on words to basically say an argument with no evidence isn't valid.
If you argue that an argument with no evidence is invalid, but don't offer any evidence to support your claim, then you've got a problem.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.