Sorry lulu, but I think you're missing the point of GrayCloak's argument; I'll try to explain some more. Your argument is that morality comes from people's "conscience"; however, a conscience is a purely subjective, personal thing that is, most likely, based upon the society in which we live. For example, lets go back to my previous example of the Aztecs; you agreed with me that human sacrifice is wrong. However, WHY is it wrong? You would argue that your conscience says that murdering people is a bad thing; however, the consciences of the Aztecs obviously said differently, because it was prevalent throughout their society. Thus, how do you determine whether what one person's conscience says to them is more right or more wrong than what another person's conscience says to them?
Now, you might argue that society would determine what's right or wrong; today, for example, most people agree that murder, robbery, rape, etc. are all horrible things, and so since everyone agrees these things are wrong that determine morality; however, this is simply a majority vote, and simply because the majority says something does not make it so. Let me give you two examples:
1. During the French Revolution, the masses decreed that the nobility needed to be killed; thousands of innocent men, women, and children were murdered. Now, there certainly were social problems in France during that time, but did they warrant the wholesale murder and destruction that ensued?
2. An even simpler example: 100 people are stranded on a deserted island. If 51 of those people decide that their conscience tells them that they are allowed to kill the other 49 people and eat them, is that OK, or is it still wrong?
"It comes from your conscience, you don't need to be religious to understand that taking the life away from a fellow human being is a horrible thing to do, it comes from years of evolution in which humans and their ancestors lived in social groups and tribes and were verry close, mourning deaths of other tribe members. Once you build up a relationship with people i think it becomes impossible to even contemplate killing someone as you can comprehend the sort of pain that it can cause to others."
History has proven that this statement of yours is untrue: there have been many cultures, nations, and groups of people who certainly have no qualms about murder; in addition, this argument of yours is based upon the fact that you don't want to cause people you know pain; however, what about killing someone you've never met? Let me give another example: Nazi concentration camps. The Nazis did not personally know the Jews they murdered, so why should that cause them pain? It obviously did not cause them pain, and thus millions of people were horribly murdered.
My overall point here is that basing morality upon a subjective conscience just does not work. As long as everyone agrees upon what morality is (and I would argue that this is because there IS an objective standard out there; since we were created in God's image, even though some might deny the truth, they still retain some of God's character), then things are fine. However, what happens when people become consistent with their views; if people's conscience tell them that rape, murder, robbery, etc. are all perfectly fine, what is to say that they are wrong?
Finally, I'm glad that you admitted that Atheist IS a religion; and, like all other religions, it is accepted
by faith! 
Once again, please don't take this personally; however, I think that these are very important issues, and ones that need to be addressed.
