The premiss for the argument on morality goes thus.

"We do not need god to teach us moral values. They are common sense."

common sense does not need nurturing. People can be nurtured to do bad things also
proves that nurturing can be flexible. So there is thus no sense of objective
morality. There is no accountability for objective morality in absence of god.
In fact, you should be relying more on Nature to prove your points, not
nurturing because you will be saying then that there are a set of moral values to be
learnt. You will thus be saying that the inner inborn sense of what is right and wrong
does not matter. 

""You are confused at this point because most of the moms/dads/families are heavily
influenced by religion so you fail to understand the difference between morality instilled
by surrounding/nurturing and that by religion."

This must be the most contradictory statement so far. I wonder how you manage to understand
the difference in absence of the same. In fact i have said before that we should never
discard sociology. The funny thing is while you do not live in an Atheist society, with Atheist
grandparents and parents, an Atheist upbringing, yet you think Atheism can bring forward good
moral values. You Sir, have a lot to prove on your plate.

Using my famous cake analogy, the issue is not whether the cake is tasty or not. Not whether the
cake goes bad in a few days or not. Or that cake is not good for people with diabetes. The question
is who made the cake?.