The article was an entertaining read. However, it contains a few errors.

First, Spinoza was not an atheist. He was a pantheist. He identified nature/universe with God and tried to overcome the infamous "mind"/matter duality posed by Descartes by claiming that both were but aspects of the infinite substance, namely, God. That is, he subscribed to a certain panpsychism. Comparisons to Buddhism are actually very superficial. Other attempts at surmounting Cartesian dualism included Malbranche's occasionalism which claimed that God was the bridge between the two (there is a humorous anecdote that on his deathbed he was asked what good the world is if God was the cause of our ideas, after which he purportedly sighed in realization and died).

Second, I don't know what it is about Hume, but he seems to be quite popular among those with little philosophical background...which would be fine if there were some humility attached to the enthusiasm. Hume is notorious for misunderstanding Aristotle, never having read his works, and relied instead on mediocre secondary sources. Furthermore, (his) skepticism is self-defeating and incoherent. I found a good link that describes some of the objections for those who are interested: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/06/hume-science-and-rel...

Third - and this is more of an observation - Buddhism, and perhaps especially of the ostensibly Tibetan Californian variety, seems to be one of those dying fads in some aging academic circles who hadn't yet properly digested it or moved on to some other colorful New Age Americanism (popular adoration for the Dalai Lama has always been incomprehensible to me; most who do haven't the slightest idea of whom they're adoring). Lhasa is far enough from the West that envisioning it as a sort of Shangri-La where all of the nastiness of the West is absent. It's kind of a secular New Jerusalem or Promised Land (the truth about Tibetan theocracy isn't quite so pretty). To her credit, the author admits the first bit.

Fourth - another observation - the Jesuits seem to be a kind of least hated order in the Catholic Church among atheists because of certain perceptions I won't elaborate here. These perceptions seem to stem from a certain Enlightenment inheritance that portrayed the Catholic Church as a stale, largely monolithic institution wallowing in superstition and unilaterally bent on destroying Science-with-a-Big-S and keeping people ignorant. Many accusation are outright fabrications or comic book worthy oversimplification that never seem to get checked by armchair historians (e.g., the Galileo affair) because the vilification of imaginary enemies is too juicy to rectify. Whatever apprehensions one might have about the faith, it is important to remember that history requires proper interpretation by keeping in mind the times and a sample of the relevant facts. For instance, if a medieval king punishes a vociferous heretic (most were clergymen, btw) by imprisoning him, we must try to understand the historical context. Was it a merciful punishment for that time period? Why was heresy seen as a threat exactly (no facile answers, please)? What did it mean to have your book placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (hint: probably not what you think if what you think is the stock answer of reactionary anti-Catholics)? I mention these consideration to inspire a search for a deeper understanding of the actual nature of such things...for those who can and dare.