Nature's Laws

[Esquilax]

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.

So the idea that words might have multiple, context-dependent meanings just kinda blows your mind, does it?

law

lô/
noun
noun: law; noun: the law

1. 1.
   the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
   "they were taken to court for breaking the law"
   
   
2. 2.
   a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
   "the second law of thermodynamics"

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.

You're making the mistake of thinking that your god is the only possible god, so therefore mocking your specific conception of god is denial of all gods. But the christian god is not the only god concept in existence, in fact there are as many god concepts as there are shades of differentiation within each characteristic of god. Mocking a specific conception of god only entails that we find that specific collection of characteristics to be worthy of mockery; you can, for example, mock a particularly poorly designed model of car without denying the existence of all cars everywhere. Joking that a thing would be as useful as a square wheeled car does not mean I think that square wheeled cars would be impossible to make, just that I find them useless. Similarly, I can find the collection of characteristics and historical claims regarding any specific god to be impossible, without outright denying the existence of all gods; finding one impossible does not extrapolate out to finding all of the set that one belongs to impossible. By arguing this way you're just showing off the extreme theistic myopia with which you're viewing the atheist position; your god ain't the only one in discussion, dude.

Not to mention the extreme arrogance of dictating our position to us, but I've come to expect that from theists.

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

Yeah, because if anyone is qualified to tell atheists what they believe, it's theists!

Are you really so afraid of honest discussion that you'll only engage when you can dictate your opponent's position as well as your own?

Well its really simple, if you don't believe either way or don't care enough about the question to bother, you are an agnostic. If you believe to any degree of certainty that there is no God, you are an atheist.

It's actually the other way around: theism and atheism refer to belief, gnosticism and agnosticism refer to knowledge, hence the root word "gnossis," which means knowledge. Agnostic is a modifier that can be applied to both atheists and theists, depending on the degree of certainty that they place on their beliefs, which are dictated by the first label. An agnostic atheist believes in no gods, without claim to knowledge. A gnostic theist believes in a god and claims to know that one exists, and vice versa.

Do you really want to play sophistic little word games instead of discussing the actual positions?