Yeah, that's not how the burden of proof works, buddy. You need to prove that cessation exists; you don't need to prove that cessation doesn't exist. In the absence of any other evidence, "afterlife" is the default state.
That makes absolutely no sense. Imagine if I claimed that, because we don't have evidence of a teapot orbiting Mars, there most likely isn't a teapot orbiting Mars. Then you replied with this:
"You need to prove that lack of a teapot orbiting Mars exists; you don't need to prove that lack of a teapot orbiting Mars doesn't exist. In the absence of any other evidence, 'a teapot orbiting mars' is the default state."
Clearly that's nonsense; nonexistence (or the null hypothesis) is the default state for anything when there's no evidence to the contrary.
You can believe in an afterlife if you want - I won't stop you - but such a conclusion certainly isn't logical.