Where are the Morals?

[Darkstar]

However, these condemnations do not have any validation because atheism is only a belief in the non-existence of God, which instinctively eradicate any moral rules given by God. Conversely, atheism has nothing to offer to fill this moral gap. Maximum it says:

"Obey your evolutionary instincts,"
"Respect your brain chemistry," or
"Follow your mental wirings"

I wanted to at least give you a fair chance to argue your point, and I guess I still did, but I initially stopped reading after the part listed above. If your argument is based on this straw man then you will have to revise it. Atheism does not 'say' anything other than that there is no convincing reason to believe in gods. I would like to point out the existence of atheistic religions, the existence of which categorically refutes your base argument. You seem to be arguing that atheism is an inherently amoral position; however, it only relates to one very specific issue, and so morality does not fall under its domain.

In contrast to atheism, religion give definite laws for a moral life.

But are they good laws? Why have laws simply for the sake of having them? There are compelling reasons to be moral even in the absence of religious dogma, but dogma, by its very definition, is unopen to revision. Bad dogma will never be fixed, but freethinkers can come up with moral rules without being forced to conform to arbitrary guidelines. You see the absoluteness of religious laws as their greatest strength, but they too were created by humans; their absoluteness is also their greatest weakness.

Their rational plans of life-involved goals, such as genocide, were the integral part of their rational plan of life, and hence doing that had the highest value for them; but it does not follow that they morally ought to have pursued that end.

And yet many religious groups over the centuries have justified genocide by their own moral laws. The in-group? Treat them well. The infidels? Off with their heads!

Atheism abandon the scriptures without providing any alternate model for moral code of conduct. Hence, atheists are left with no other choice than to peek into religion in pursuit of moral guidance. There is no academy in the secular world that gives awareness on morals in a scientific way.

So we're going to pretend that non-religious moral philosophy doesn't exist now?

On the other hand, I believe that whole structure of morals in secularism is based on the religious teachings because only it is religion that had given knowledge on human values in a systematic manner and people have enjoyed the wisdom of morals based on religion throughout the human history.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think you invalidated your entire argument here. It isn't so much religion as religious morality that you are claiming is necessary, meaning that an atheist who follows the moral laws in question would be no less moral than a religious person who did so. An atheist may reject the concept of a god, but this does not mean that s/he must also categorically reject religious moral teachings. That's the beauty of not being religious; you can pick out the good parts of religious teachings and reject the bad, rather than categorically having to accept them all.

"But how would you know what was good or bad in the first place?" you might ask. Well, how did the people who first invented religious laws know? There is no reason to think that religious morals are necessarily superior to secular ones.