"Hitchens Razor" is self contradictory.

This is something I have come across recently, and I wondered what people here thought of the concept. For those who dont know, "Hitchens Razor" goes as follows:



"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"



Im sure most here are familiar with the phrase. I am a big fan of it as well. Yet its self-contradictory paradoxal nature was thrown in my face today, and I wasnt sure how to respond. I will post a link to an article written addressing Hitchens supposed flawed logic with this argument, but in short, it is as follows.



[Hitchens assertion that anything which has no evidence can be dismissed without evidence, does not provide evidence to prove its own validity. Thus making his own statement dismissible within the rules of his own assertion]



Here is an article that expresses the idea better than I can:

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com...r-failure.html



Here is a reddit discussion:

http://ift.tt/1puGI2Q





Thoughts? How would one respond to someone who uses this argument?

via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1pnQyBC