"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"<quoted text>
Definition of belief (n)
[ bi lf ]
1.acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty
2.trust: confidence that somebody or something is good or will be effective
3.something that somebody believes in: a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true
This is all true 3 for 3. For the very simple reason. You can not prove there was no creator of The Universe, even harder to prove no creator of Earth or humanity. With the limits of what is humanity on Earth in regards to time. We are now starting to put together plans make Mars habitable. Your claims of facts are just what you believe, and when get emotional about it and support them as you do, as mentioned above in definition #1. You don't feel the yearn though? If you do, you will move on, if not. You really should find better hobbies than this, your time is very limited.
As you can plainly see it's your job to prove there IS a creator of the universe. I don't know why people like you insist on using this dishonest and sleazy tactic. Most likely because you realize that you have no proof and try and create a smokescreen by asking someone to prove a negative. Bertrand Russel's celestial teapot should have put an end to this dishonest and ignorant tactic.
When the definition reads "acceptance of the truth of something." it means that there is ONLY one kind of truth. A truth is something that is INDISPUTABLY then case. It's indisputable because there is scientific evidence that makes whatever it is, true. A belief is NOT truth, unless of course that truth is supported by science.