Only the first option makes sense to me. To not require proof leaves you open to believing whatever nonsense wafts into your ears, and to deny the possibility goes against the scientific principle of testing hypotheses. Physical proof is absolutely necessary for any theory to be considered valid.
Quibble over the exact definitions and differences between atheism and agnosticism all you will, and you will not be one atom closer to proving the existence of God. This has been a war of semantics at best.
As for your original hypothesis, that atheism is not "the most logical conclusion", I would disagree. At this point in history, after many thousands of years of talking and writing about it, religion is no closer to proving the existence of God now than the day the first primitive human looked at the Earth and sky and asked "Where did all this come from?"
It is more logical to conclude that this is because no sentient "universe-creating" being exists than to conclude that a sentient universe-creating entity does exist and is hiding from us because it wants us to abandon reason and take other humans' word for its existence.
But then, I could be wrong.