Just to sum up:
1. We looked at the “proof” on your website. It turned out to turn on the premise that there can be no objective laws of logic without the Judeo-Christian God. You say you don’t just assume this but argue for it, and suggest the supporting argument (which you call “the impossibility of the contrary”) lies behind the “continue” button. But there’s no supporting argument there, and you weirdly refuse to set the argument out. The larger argument fails, then, as a “proof” for it helps itself to a premise that is contentious, challenged and, as yet, unsupported.
2. We then turned to how atheists might “account for” the laws of logic. This conversation was complex, as “account for” covers at least two quite separate issues (the question of how to justify such laws, and the question of what might metaphysically underpin them or make them hold). However, we saw that, again, you have no argument for this conclusion (other than something you call the “impossibility of the contrary”, which you constantly allude to, but never actually explain). Worse, I presented three examples of atheist-friendly solutions to the puzzle of how the laws of logic might be “accounted for”, none of which you’ve been able to refute. So, again, your claim that atheists are in principle unable to “account for” logic looks rather flimsy.
True, you do have a whole stock of rhetorical moves that you make in order to deflect attention away from these facts. I lampooned some of them here.