Nature's Laws

[YGninja]

Where do the laws of nature and the laws of logic come from?

We don't know. Just making up an answer and requiring someone prove you wrong is the argument from ignorance fallacy. You still need positive evidence for your claim.

If there is no god, why do so many atheists care so much about the non-existence of a supposedly fictional deity?

Most atheists don't claim there is no god, they claim there isn't good enough reason to think that there is a god.

Please watch this for a full answer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wguAQHWVcZY

No offense taken

1: Its not an argument from ignorance because he is not asserting that the proposition is true because of lacking evidence to the contrary. 
You have two faults here just in your understanding of this fallacy. 1: He is not asserting proof, only evidence. 2: He is not asserting truth because of evidence lacking to the contrary. He is recognizing a probability of truth because of what he already knows about law, and logic. 
All laws of which we know their origin, have a maker. The only laws which we don't attribute to a creator (atleast atheists don't), are natural laws. If one is to claim that those laws do not have a creator (the real atheist position, see #2), they would be committing the fallacy of special pleading. As the total of our experience concerning laws has shown the need for a creator, and as a law without a creator seems incoherent, it is more likely than not that the laws of nature are no different. Hence this constitutes evidence for a creator.

2: Most atheists do believe there is no God, and this is evidenced wherever atheists are. Whenever atheists ridicule the concept of God, which is all the time, it belies their position that they actively believe there are none. What they say is another matter because they are just trying to have their cake and eat it: ridicule God without wearing a burden of proof. Posting your blog to support your definition is as bad as Christians saying the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. Your definition of atheism was created by Anthony Flew, in his social engineering project "The Presumption of Atheism", a book created to redefine atheism for the very purposes you are demonstrating: to claim the default position with no BOP. He writes:

"the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way.  Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. " The Presumption of Atheism, by Antony Flew


He admits he is pushing a non-standard definition, which you are now pretending is the definition.

Your definition has no historical or logical grounding and was only engineering by Orwellian inspiration for purposes of social engineering.

Let me give you another quote; i was reading some atheist literature the other night, "Your God Is Too Small", by the Atheist Republic, perhaps the largest atheist community online:

"We're all atheists here. We're convinced, and rightfully so, that there is no god. Religion is a joke, and the concept of heaven and hell is a tool used to control the masses"

They are honest enough to affirm their belief, at-least in their literature meant to be consumed by other atheists.