I disagree on the request for a choice in this way:
If you're going to go Abrahamatic, I'd recommend progressive reform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism_%28North_America%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam
A few ground rules of that are to understand faith as such--a hope for a pos-
sible God beyond the known proven things--therefore favor separation of church
and state, and favor keeping up to speed about the known proven things about
science and evolution, rights of women and homosexuals, etc.
As both the believer and non-believer should be against barriers to scientific
advancement, both should be against being 'centric and intolerant about the be-
lief or non-belief stance since most of the harm has come from either about
those things (or 'centric intolerance for anything that's not a character
determinant: race, age, nationality, etc.).
Most Jewish people understand how to see their faith with a progressive spin,
and a substantial and growing batch of Christians do as well. An unfortunately
small percent of Muslims are trying it in a predominantly orthodox/conservative
field.
Much of the non-believers case against certain orthodox stances, notably re-
garding harm to people or science, are the progressive believers cases as well.
Substantial lists are available of believers and non-believers who've advanced
science and justice or, on the other hand, were harmful to the ones different
than them. The blanket characterization of either is a detriment to understand-
ing for everyone.
Therefore, I'd only agree to pitting belief in God against science as a choice
regarding conflict that goes against those ground rules since they aren't meant
to do the same things and a blanket call for a choice is a forced choice.
More realistic and harmonious is for both to agree to be against barriers to
scientific advancement (fundamentalist argument against evolution, bigotry about
women and homosexuals, etc.) and separation of church and state (punishment for
apostasy or state atheism purges of believers).
Neither atheism (rejection of God or gods) nor faith understood as such in a
possible God beyond the known proven things stiplates harm to science or people.
If either kind stipulates it, both should blame the stipulator.
When in this agreement, believers and non-believers can see their differences
in perspective as similar to different subjective reactions to music for which
they agree on the objective math (beats, chords, scales, etc).