The article on behalf of atheism indicates that if something cannot be proven scientifically, it is not worth believing. The scientific method has certainly increased our understanding of life and the world, and it is a powerful ways of knowing that I respect. But it is not the only way of knowing.
We know things based on our experience, our intuition, our feelings, our gut instinct, and our subconscious. Our conscious mind, which is the part of us that engages in scientific investigation, represents only a fraction of our ability. Our subconscious is continually working away, making decisions for our well-being.
From an evolutionary perspective, it is inefficient for us to decide if we have to breathe, so our subconscious takes care of that for us. Scientists cannot fully explain gravity, and yet we know through our experience that it keeps us grounded on earth.
An experience of deep grief over the loss of someone close to us, or of profound joy when we feel spiritually connected to everything around us, may forever change our awareness of reality, but who could do a double blind study of what has happened?
All religions initially developed their theologies based on people experiencing the sense of another priniple or reality at work, and trying to put words to that experience. Any faith divorced from personal experience, which is usually not scientifically provable, quickly loses it meaning.
Even the scientific method is not as objective as we think. Scientists are now faced with the fact that atoms change behaviour based on being observed.
I prefer to not limit my ability to know something by only relying on the scientific method. Ask a mother who knows instantly, from a distance, that something bad has happened to her child.