Why are his non-beliefs important?
Richard Dawkins is a mixed bag, like everyone else. He has his points and he has his quirks - like his cringeworthy (as Christopher Hitchens terms it) suggestion that atheists should relabel themselves "Brights" to improve their public image, much like homosexuals relabelled themselves "Gay" for the same reason. He gets precipitously close to being an apologist for pedophiles at times, saying they are very bad, but not that bad relative to others who are worse (he tells a story of a little girl who was molested by a priest around the same time she was told that sinners roast in Hell and who, as a woman, describes the molestation as merely "yucky" but the hellfire image as truly horrifying and scarring to her psyche.) That said, I like the guy's mind.
Regardless, he does have a bee up his ass about religion, pretty much despises it, and that is the reason he is keen to demonstrate that non-believers like him can be altruistic.