[Abe Froman]

What I'm saying is that a total "lack of belief" is disingenuous and not logical. In order for one to "withhold" belief in dragons on Mars one must affirmatively believe that it is possible that they don't exist. If not, one cannot claim non-belief. Since one's non-belief must neccessarily be predicated on other affirmative beliefs it is not really "non-belief" at all. Therefore a-theism is, in fact, a belief, not the lack of same.

[Dimensio]

In order for one to "withhold" belief in dragons on Mars one must affirmatively believe that it is possible that they don't exist.

What a bizarre statement. You seem so desperate to prove that atheism involves "belief" that you're inventing new logical rules for assumptions, insisting that withholding belief requires "belief in the possibility of naught". Of course, to believe such, you must also believe that it is possible that it is possible that they don't exist, and you can go several levels deep before you realise that you're wasting your time on semantics rather than logical reasoning. There's also the fact that lack of belief in something can simply be a matter of never hearing of the thing in the first place -- as such, someone who has never heard of god-concepts before and lacks belief as a result is still an atheist.