Does proving God doesn't exist require the same burden of proof as proving God does exist?

I've always thought it was unfair for atheists to say theists have to prove that god exist and if they don't then we must ume he doesn't. Let me give you a little background on me so you know where I'm coming from. I'm a philosophy major next fall and I'm also a debater. As a debater I had to argue both sides of a statement. I had to prove it true (affirm) and I had to prove it false (negate). Now sometimes it would be a positive statement (Resolved: Socialized medicine is just) or negatively (Resolved: Socialized medicine is unjust) Either way if I was affirmative I would have to prove the statement true rather stated in the negative or positive. Each had an equal burdened of proof for the affirmative while the negative simply had to prove the statement false or at least unprovable. Thus why should the statement "God does not exist" require less of a burden of proof than "God does exist." They are both substantial statements and I don't see how a negative statement has a lowered burden. Personally I'm a pionate Apathiest (I love contradictions) so my posting this question is just out of curiosity and I'll pick the best answer based on which is most intelligent not which I agree with.