You are conflating Atheism simplister, with Strong Atheism.
It would be the same if you claimed that Creationism rejects an Old Earth because YECs do.
The position of Atheism is simply a “rejection of the assertion that there [are] gods” – that some atheists go beyond that does not change the fact that this is the most you can say about Atheism as a whole.
A belief that gods don’t exist is an additional belief that not all atheists share. The one feature that all atheists share is a lack of belief in gods.
That is what atheists are saying.
Ya… that would include agnostics among athiests.
Edit: it would also make little children, people in coma etc athiests.
Would all the above be willing to self identify as athiests?
Ya… but it doesnt make sense… I guess athiests can say illogical things just as much as anybody else…
See what you started by calling out one of my typos! 
I am amazed! But not too amazed - this discussion pops up frequently in atheist communities. I’ve seen it so much that I usually ignore it now.
Agnostics are also atheists, if you want to be taxonomic about it.
Religion is learned behavior, so yes, everyone is born atheist. Baptism would seem to resolve any religious difficulties with people being born as atheists, if you are into that sort of thing. 
Speaking for myself, I am not a Dictionary Atheist, and I don’t much care how others try to define/label me or arguing the definition. Things I am-not do not define me. I am defined by positive believes and positive aspects of my self. For instance, I do not need to define myself as “not a philatelist”, there is no need for that negative trait since I have never been a philatelist.
Atheism is a negative trait. I don’t need the label. I lack the trait of theism and have no more need to describe that lack than I need to tell people “I do not collect stamps”. Calling myself atheist tells others nothing about my positive traits. I use the label agnostic because that the closest to how I feel about it (a longer story), and typing out a few paragraphs every time the question comes up is a darned nuisance. 
Reading that PZ Myers essay (linked above) was my departure point from worrying about what I should call myself. Myers took a lot of criticism for it, but I think it’s one of the better things he has ever written.
I already showed how it is logical. A claim lacking evidence can not be assumed to be false, just lacking in evidence. It would be illogical to conclude a claim is false simply because no one can produce evidence for the claim at this moment in time. Do you agree with this or not?
This is also true. Being logical and rational is a tendency among atheists, but by no means a requirement.