In a basic probability course, there seems to be an implicit assumption that any continuous random variable has a density function, but I don't really see why this should be. My intuition is that there's some probability space $(\Omega, \Sigma, P)$ and a measurable function $X : \Omega \to \mathbb{R}$, and you'd like to know the probability that $X$ takes on a value in some measurable $E \subseteq \mathbb{R}$. The natural thing to do is look at the push-forward measure, $X_*P(E) = P(X^{-1}(E))$, but in any introductory probability book they make some claim that there's a density function $f$ such that this probability is $\int_E f(x) dx$, which seems to mean $X_*P$ is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure, but I don't really see why this should be true in general.
I suppose this should mean that if $E \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ has zero Lebesgue measure, then $X^{-1}(E)$ has has zero $P$-measure, but again I don't see why this needs to be true for an arbitrary measurable function $X$.
Is this just an assumption that introductory books make, or is there something else going on that I'm not seeing?
You might want to read the Wikipedia section on this. In short, you are right: a continuous distribution need not be absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure (the Cantor distribution is given as an example in my previous link).
Most of your post is beyond the scope of an introductory course in probability, where most continuous distributions that are studied are ones with densities.