The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Jenny A]

This is where you fail.  Asserting the existence of Plato's forms is a claim and has the burden of proof.  Not being convinced of the existence of those forms is not a claim and has no burden of proof.  

Read the part I highlighted in red, Jenny. Someone asserting that Plato's Forms do not exist has the burden of proof.

Wrong.

Similarly asserting the existence of god or the resurrection are claims.  Being unconvinced of those claims is not. The reason for this is obvious.  It is not possible to prove a negative, therefore the person asserting the positive claim has the burden of proof.  

The point is that atheists make a positive claim that God does not exist.

Wrong again. A negative cannot be proven. I don't claim to have proved one. I only claim that no one has demonstrated any even slightly persuasive evidence that he does. Thus I don't believe in god and am an atheist.

Your suggestion that a person asserting that Plato's forms exist and someone asserting they don't both have the burden of proof is silly.  You have given both sides the burden of proof thus rendering the burden of proof meaningless.

Yes, I have. And it is up to others to evaluate both arguments. It's no different from the science example which you were okay with:

If you want to propose that Particle X exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
If you want to propose that Particle X does not exist, the burden again falls to you.

Nope. Wrong again. Proposing that particle X does not exist is a negative claim and cannot be proven. Therefore the burden of proof is on the person proposing the existence of particle X.

If you want to propose that God exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
If you want to propose that God does not exist, the burden of proof again falls to you.

See above. The burden is always on the person making the positive claim.

You cannot use science to prove or disprove God. This is why these proofs fall into the domain of philosophy.

You've already said the burden of proof is the same in philosophy as in science. That burden is on the positive claim. Your burden, your colossal failure.

When you find an atheist who thinks he or she can prove the lack of existence of god, let me know. The vast majority of atheists I know simply state that the god claim is unproven. The burden to prove the god claim rests with you. I'm not losing any sleep over it.