The other commenters here have done a fine job of debunking the incorrect assertions in this article, so there's no need to rehash those. Just a few points to make.

1. As has been said countless times before, there is no burden on atheists to "prove" there is no god, partly because atheism is simply the belief --not the claim -- that there is no god.

2. Additionally, one cannot prove the absence of something. And there's no need for atheists to prove the absence of god, because they aren't making a claim. Most theists, however, are making the claim that one exists. Yes? Then prove it, if you want to convince others (or yourself).

3. Legitimate science includes the idea of falsifiability. There should be some observation, test, or experiment that could potentially demonstrate a hypothesis ("god exists") to be false. Can you imagine something that would definitely prove to you that there is no god? If not, then the existence of god cannot be established by science and attempting to argue the existence of god based on science immediately falls flat.

4. I've come up with a simple experiment to prove to me that there is a god. If I could watch an alleged god, or an agent of such a god, instantaneously restore a human being's long-amputated limb to its original, fully intact, and functional condition, I would conclude that that had to be done supernaturally. I can imagine no present or future human technology that could ever achieve that. Surely, an entity that created the entire universe and wants to demonstrate its existence, could perform that simple action, thereby changing faith into fact. Or not.