one religious person says the is wrong to demolish others worship place as per their scriptures , when in comes to athiest , what is their source to say it is wrong

One major thing that sets atheism apart from religions is that atheists do not have scripture, or really any set of unifying beliefs. They share a lack of belief in existence of any gods, but aside from that, it's on every individual to fill in the rest, which includes views on morality. Many (but not all) atheists take the view that, if no gods exist, then supernatural justice systems such as heaven and hell, karma, etc. do not exist either. Rather than seeing this as an excuse to commit evil actions or as a way to get away with them, some atheists take this to mean that it is even more important for people to create a just world for other people. So, while an atheist may disagree with the views being taught at a place or worship, they usually don't believe that they have the authority to impose their views on others, and that attempting to do so will ultimately just make those people's lives worse.

That said, as a person who is mostly atheist myself, here's a list of reasons that I would consider it wrong to demolish a place of worship:

1. Basic property rights. Even absent religious context, that is someone else's building on someone else's land. Society just couldn't function if we burned each other's houses down because we disagreed with them.


2. Freedom of religion. I would not want anyone forcing me into their religious beliefs, so I recognize the harm in forcing someone else into mine. Particularly as there are countries out there with theocratic governments we can look at to see the types of harm it causes.


3. Places of worship often serve a key role in community building. Social connections are an important part of people's lives, both mentally and practically, and places of worship tend to be good places to forge those connections.


4. Places of worship often double as charity or community outreach centers, which in many cases will serve people who don't belong to their religion.


5. Religious beliefs themselves can provide people with tangible benefits. There are plenty of people out their who face struggles like addiction who use their beliefs as a source of resiliance, people who take comfort in the idea that there is a god looking after them, or people whose primary motivation for acting morally is the idea of supernatural justice. Destroying places of worship would erode those benefits.


6. Destroying places of worship, historically, has commonly been used as an intimidation tactic. Particularly when the congregants belong to an ethnic or religious minority, destroying a place of worship carries an implicit threat of violence against the congregants, and is often done to either drive those people out of an area or make them unwilling to exercise social power.


7. Certain places of worship do have general cultural value. The art and architecture of a cathedral, or the historical significance of an ancient temple, can be enjoyed and studied by people regardless of their religious beliefs.

I am not sure if this a question about morality or logical fallacies. As for fallacies, this question is begging the question that the atheist (incorrectly assumed here to be a group that shares a moral framework) says the act is wrong.

As for the moral question, let's look at some non-theistic moral frameworks, since it is clear that the atheist would never point to some holy book as a moral authority on anything. Most moral frameworks would consider the circumstance and the nuances surrounding the action. Some might look at the harm done if demolished vs harm done if not demolished and choose the path of least harm. Some may say that even if one person is harmed, it is a bad act and should not be done. The point is, atheists as a group do not share the same moral system and codes of ethics. Each is free to adopt their own.