Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Precisely. Atheism is as much a belief system as theism, in spite of protests by Dawkins et al.

I think you need to read a little Dawkins, as he has never made the claim that his atheism is not a belief. More to the point:
On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, Dawkins rates himself a 6: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
In neither of these cases is science defining our values or our morality.

I think you have mis-understood harris's argument. Its a long read, but he summarizes it in the following link (yes, its in the huffington post, please don't hold that against him):

Harris is essentially proposing that we replace conventional morality with one defined by "science" - by which he means empirical measurement followed by logical application. Basically, harris is claiming that moral behaviours/activities/etc can be empirically defined as those which provide the maximum measurable benefit for the largest number of people.

I've not read the book yet, but it is on my list.