In the comments following the short article titled above and linked here,

Carstonio
wrote:

Instead of thinking about religion in terms of faith, it would be far more sound and praactical to think about it in terms of morality. Since we have no evidence to support either the existence or non-existence of gods, and have no way to gauge the likelihood of either, we should simply put the question aside as speculative. This would mean religion could focus on how humans treat one another with the goal of reducing suffering. Just about every religion has some version of the Golden Rule, and even “rule” is misleading since morality isn’t a matter of following rules for its own sake. It’s worth considering what a religion would look like if it made no claims either way about the “metaphysical” or the “supernatural.”

AlwaysQuestionAuthority_wordpress_com
responded: 

Evidence to “support . . . [the] non-existence of gods,” has not been, is not now and will not ever be required! The philosophic burden of proof always lies with the one who makes the positive assertion, e.g., there is a god, to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

It is not incumbent upon the one that denies the positive assertion to provide evidence counter to the claim being asserted. To state that, “we have no evidence to support . . . non-existence of gods,” is an attempt to shift the philosophic burden of proof responsibility from the one making the assertion to the one denying the assertion. This is an argument from ignorance, a common fallacy in informal logic, and should be avoided.

The “metaphysical” and “supernatural” are of the same realm as opposed to the natural, i.e., physical (sensual) realm. The metaphysical realm falls in the analytical domain of logic and reason, as was discussed above, whereas, the physical realm falls in the observable domain of empirical evidence.

Question:
What say you?