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.

I don't claim to be an expert on agnosticism, but I still have a question in my mind that I've been pondering.
Why does the agnostic choose only to follow his agnosticism?
Here's why I wonder (taking into account that I don't know all the in's and out's of their beliefs): The agnostic believes we cannot know God. We cannot know what is true. There probably is truth, but we just don't have the capacity to know it.
So my question is, why does the agnostic choose to live with his agnosticism? If truth is out there somewhere, even though we can't really know it, at least if they believed in something they'd have better odds at being right than remaining in their chasm of uncertainty. Especially concerning matters of eternity. From their viewpoint, "What if there is a God, and a heaven and hell?" Well, since we can't know for sure what is true about these matters, I might as well not believe anything." Even though they know it is possible for the truth to be in something, regardless of our capacity to know it. So what makes them choose "nothing" rather than "something," seeing that "nothing" comes with the greatest risk (100%) for dying apart from truth? I'm not sure exactly. I would guess that it has something to do with the natural desire (or a "default state of being") to have freedom from the rules and restrictions that are popularly perceived to come with the territory of believing in "something," and to control their own lives. This could be enhanced by different experiences these people have endured in their lives. They disown religion because it didn't work for them before in certain circumstances. "I prayed for God to heal my mom, but she died instead. If there was a God, He wouldn't have let that happen." Thus begins the vicious cycle of logical justifications for disbelief in God, beginning with an occurance wherein things didn't happen in a way that the person thought they should have happened if God were the way they thought Him to be (and not to harp on this, but as a rebuttal, how can those who now claim to not be able to know truth claim that they know what God should look and act like? But the emotional damage has been done [not by the hand of God, but by a reaction that came from a false understanding of God mixed with a circumstantial trigger], and they are sold in their new belief) The possibilities are endless. All this to say, I wonder why agnostics sit on their beliefs when the greatest potential outcome is failure?