the burden of proof lies with he who affirms, you want me to produce evidence of nothing?
You prove Dawkins DEFINITELY knows the truth.
Fuck me, with all thats evil in the world you talk about a God, if there is a God hes a right twat....
In basic philosophy the burden of proof is required for both positive(affirmative) and negative claims.
"[insert concept] is true." is an example of a positive(affirmative claim)
"[insert concept] is not true." is an example of a negative claim.
Both require support.
The idea that only affirmative claims require proof is fallacious. It's a notion that has run rampant in arguments between atheists and theists and it isn't correct.
You basically stated one positive and one negative claim:
"It is true that nothing exists before birth and after death" (positive claim because concept of "nothing" isn't necessarily automatic a negation....the concept of nothing is often treated as something)
"God is not true." (negative claim because of the inclusion of "no God")
My claims require evidence and so do yours. I've provided evidence many times. It's up to the objector to determine whether or not they will follow said evidence.
I fully admit this can be disputed endlessly, but I can't prevent that either.