That being said, religions can have a very influential factor in the creation and passing of morality to the next generation; but this is simply because a religion is simply a social grouping. Any social group, ranging from families to secular communities to workplaces can and do have influence on morality.
So, in a way, morality does depend on religion, but only the religion as a social group; the religion as a belief in a God doesn't make someone moral. I would argue the opposite, a sense of morality must exist for a religion to function. Judaism was founded on the Ten Commandments. Presuming they were man-made (I would say very likely), then humans had a sense of morality before religion was made.
Religion is worshipping a God. You must do what he tells you. This is your morals. Someone must invent religions. Morals therefore precede religion.
Religion depends on Morality.
Minimum conception of morality: "Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason--that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing--while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one's decision. As the name suggests , the minimum conception is a core that every moral theory should accept, at least as a starting point." --James Rachels Atheism and the Golden Rule
Atheism, however, is identified with evil and moral anarchy, and some atheists indeed are less than virtuous -- just like some religious people. As a group, disbelievers surely are no better than believers, but are they worse? It is difficult to mount an affirmative defense of atheism without sounding as self-righteous as religious zealots quoting scripture. But you can, at least, acknowledge what atheism is not: It is not inherently nihilistic, as many believe; it does not deprive you of moral standards or instincts. Except for the sadomasochistic among us, childhood lessons in the Golden...