You’re not filled with fields or those fields would block neutrinos. Instead we can shoot them though the earth and detect them just fine on the other side. Fields represent possible locations, not actual locations.
For anything that responds to the electromagnetic force, you're filled with fields. For something that responds only to the weak force, you're almost entirely empty space.
In the English-language usage I grew up with, 'occupied' means that there is something there, while 'filled' means occupied to the point where nothing more can be added. The former does not imply the latter.
In this usage, space itself (the 'empty' space of the article's title) is implicitly not something.
This usage may seem to be an accidental issue of language, resulting from an incomplete understanding of physics, but a lot of metaphysics seems to reach the point of hanging on such definitions. One may, of course, agree with both of the points of view expressed in this paragraph.
This whole idea of empty space within atoms is just nonsense using English grammar as a substitute for physics. It's a meaningless statement either way until you define the terms specifically enough. And by doing that, you can choose whatever answer you want. "occupied to the point where nothing more can be added" isn't specific enough because you can still add a lot of photons to a "filled" glass of water, so that means it's not filled by that definition even though it is by common sense. It just shows the irrelevance of everyday words and concepts at the subatomic scale.
Even a neutron star is practically invisible to neutrinos which can easily pass through it despite it's being "filled" with neutrons.
It’s abstract, but we experience this kind of issue with language lot. Think of a box that doesn’t have any objects in it. It’s empty, right? But if it’s sitting on the table in front of you it’s probably full of air.
So in one respect it’s completely empty but in another it’s totally full.
