@layman,
No you have NOT settled it ! As usual you have not thought it through.
If you read it carefully, the criticism you cite is based on the premise that 'good things' are the social complement of 'bad things'. That is simplistic because it implies that 'murder' is the
opposite of 'not killing'. The second is contextually predicated/depends on the first. It is not 'good' in its own right...it is merely the absence of 'bad'. That is why Dawkins has a case (irrespective of science). He reflects Harris's point that...
'With or without religion good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. But it takes religion to make good people do bad things'