Charles Hawking said something that has become a cheer and a herald for atheists: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Though atheists treat this statement with as much respect and admiration as a puppy does his owner, it really does nothing to promote the cause of Atheism.
First, it does not provide any reason to reject God. It merely states (though emphatically within context) what theists already believe, that men are free to accept or reject God and His Son (i.e., the existence of a theos and the means by which Christians believe He relates to mankind). I don't think it is a stretch to say Christians actually believed the basic concept before it ever entered the thoughts of an atheist. It does not provide evidence, logical or physical, against theism. It does, however, claim there is no evidence for theism. But it does nothing to build actual evidence against theism.
Second, it does not provide support for Atheism. In fact, the exact same phrase could be used in reference to atheism from the theistic standpoint. Charles Hawking himself, when confronted with the need to provide evidence for atheism during a debate with William Lane Craig, could not provide evidence, but rather avoided the question with much stuttering. It was a perfect opportunity to muster evidence against God in a crowd of both believers and atheists, but he didn't.
Third, it implies, or should I say that the popularity of such a vague statement implies that those who honor the statement believe at some point that the absence of evidence for a theos provides evidence for absence of a theos. This is purely illogical. You cannot disprove the existence of something based on the fact that you haven't seen the proof.
Now, I do not say that the statement is illogical or wrong within the confines of it's limitations. However, I write this in response to the popularity that the statement has achieved among atheists. It is nothing but a fluff-packed pillow that an atheist can rest his weary head on after he has exerted hard labor out of his pre-determined heart. The statement does not flow out of someone seeking truth, but rather someone who has already decided.

We must be careful not to blur the lines between not compromising our positions and having sacrifice without mercy.
James 1:27 "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
Our religion (speaking as James would define it, rather than some program or whatever) is not based upon how well we hold to a belief, but rather how we love people. The last description is often a can of worms in this department, as many tend to throw in their ten cents concerning what being "unstained" looks like. Well, here's my tens cents. Take it for what it's worth (pun intended).
I would define "unstained" within its context. I would treat this as a neat segway to chapter 2, where James further describes how we should treat others, just like 1:27 was describing. I believe the context supports the notion that being unstained from the world refers to not live according natural tendencies to treat people differently based on status.
Anyway, all that to say, "unstained" is not quite so broad and subject to opinion as one might think.
Back to the point. Our religion is not based on how dogmatic we are about our doctrinal stances. Rather it is based on how we relate to those around us. It is founded in a relationship with Christ, and that reveals itself through our relationships with other people. When we choose to break relationships because of our inability to compromise, we defile our religion. We sacrifice, but neglect mercy. Now, there is cause for separation, but even that is to the end that heavenly and earthly relationships are restored. When a brother or sister in Christ chooses sin and/or to follow a false Gospel, then there is a reason to separate, all to the end that the wanderer might return to Christ and to the fellowship of believers.
When we become so "sold" on beliefs concerning issues that do not necessitate such a "sold" point of view in order to progress in our relationships with Christ and others, we set ourselves up for nullifying Phil. 1:27 and Eph. 4:12-13 with our lives and relationships. I will not give specific examples so as not to stir up disunity, however this is something that we ought to meditate on. Is my dogmatic stand concerning ___ more important than my relationship with someone? Is my or someone else's relationship with Christ really at stake if I or they do not believe ___? If not, then we should be willing to compromise.

I heard, in relation to counseling, that a person has to hit rock-bottom before he can turn his life around. I've been thinking about that quote. At first thought, I would like to think that it's not true. I mean, come on...I've changed without sulking into depression, feeling like there's nothing left where I'm at. But the more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with the statement. "Rock-Bottom" is basically another term for "realizing your current state, and honestly coming to grips with the truth." This person is fully exposed to HIMSELF. He has quit fooling himself and allowed himself to admit to his wrong and his need for radical change. I remember the man in Luke 18:13 - "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner." This man was justified in the eyes of God. But who does that these days? Stand, looking to the ground, beating one's chest, praying aloud, grieving. I guess it would follow to ask how many people return from their prayers having their relationship with God mended? Not to say one must beat their chest to be heard. But this just shows a sincere and exposed heart. And exposure is not something people are comfortable with, no, not with their unseemly parts. And this is not to say we ought to live our lives with guilt. But this is to say that there ought to be sincerity and grief when confronted with those things about ourself that are not fit for a child of the King. I think the following quote from A.W. Tozer would be fitting:

"It is possible to go through life believing that we believe, while actually having no conviction more vital than a conventional creed inherited from our ancestors or picked up from. . .our social circle. If this creed requires that we admit our own depravity we do so and feel proud of our fidelity to the Christian faith. But from the way we love, praise and pamper ourselves it is plain enough that we do not consider ourselves worthy of damnation."

So, back to hitting rock-bottom: Must one hit rock-bottom to really change? If the change is going to be real, lasting, and sincere rather than just externally conforming, then I believe so. Not only is hitting rock-bottom a place where we realize our depravity, but it also, when joined with the hope Christ brings, gives us deep motivation to change, and purpose behind the actions that follow. If we haven't known conviction deeply within ourselves, then perhaps we aren't really convinced that it's all that bad. And when we DO change, it is as Tozer said - because we're led by our individual culture (which could be merely a comment from a fellow church member or a quote from the pulpit, or the fact that those around us act and dress a certain way or do certain things) rather than conviction in Christ. Our change is done in order to fit into a system of ethics that we're continually developing, rather than a relationship that we SHOULD be continually developing. Therefore we are not conformed into the image of Christ, but rather the image of those that surround us. If they look like Christ, then we may come to look like Christ to, but we are not like Christ. Weirdly enough, the only true way to grow in Christ's likeness is to hit rock-bottom first. It is there that we rid ourselves of the self-effort and self-sufficiency that plagues us, and we reach out to Christ from our miry clay. Then He will be the one who sets our feet on a rock.