This is just the apologist dodge of we all believe and practice stupid shit, so we're on equal footing. Though, the nice thing is that the article implies being religious isn't a good thing. So, saying your just as religious or more religious, is like saying your just as stupid too. Though their wrong, it is a telling argument on that position. But I'm up for discussion on this.
My wife is a former journalist and used to hate when she'd file a carefully worded thought piece like this and then her editor would sensationalize the headline and maybe pull some factoid that was properly framed and qualified in the article, and move it up into the lead. I suspect that's what happened here; either that, or the author of this piece is inexperienced, careless, and/or a future editor.
The "nones" include a minority of agnostics and atheists but are mostly made up of religiously unaffiliated theists. It is those theists who are more religious than affiliated theists in Europe.
Of course there ARE a handful of religious atheists, who belong to atheistic religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Satanism, the atheistic sect of Quakers, or some post-Christian Uniterian-Universalist congregation, etc. These could be said to be "religious" for some given value of "religious", but another problem with this article is that she doesn't really define "religious" or "religiosity" for her purposes.
This is a very unfortunate bit of bad publicity for us. It's getting tiresome pushing back against stuff like this.