Atheists, would you consider being Stoics?
960030
I am sure many atheists are stoics, since atheists simply do not believe in God. and stoics believe that virtue and happiness are obtained through destiny and natural law - there is no clash.\n\nMany unknowingly are stoics!!!
249487
I am sorry to not be able to offer better company. If it is of any relief, I did meet one guy a long time ago who was a true atheist. His belief was that mankind would be better off the sooner they realized that a higher power was neither existant nor necessary. I was intrigued to find someone of such a like and opinion. Although I do not agree, I did respect his thoughts and beliefs. Unfortunately, the rest of the class overheard and went off on him. I had to apologize for it was not my intention when I first asked. So, no, you're not alone.
908673
Atheist philosophy is philosophical, not scientific or deity centered.  Philosophy is distinct from religiosity AND science.
1154091
Following Socrates, the Stoics held that unhappiness and evil are the results of ignorance. If someone is unkind, it is because they are unaware of their own universal reason. Likewise, if they are unhappy, it is because they have forgotten how nature actually functions. The solution to evil and unhappiness then, is the practice of stoic philosophy—to examine one's own judgements and behaviour and determine where they have diverged from the universal reason of nature.\n\n1. The key to successful living (sometimes called happiness) is freedom from the violent feelings. \n\n2. The key to freedom from the violent feelings is living in accordance with virtue. \n\n3. The key to virtue is living consistently in agreement with nature. \n\n4. The things called good by most people, such as life, health, possessions, good reputation, and the like, are often in accord with our nature. \n\n5. But they are not consistently in accord with our nature, as they are sometimes purchased or preserved at the expense of a person's integrity. \n\n6. Virtue and successful living are not inborn but result from deliberate choice and continuous attention to what is in our power and what is not.
599486
Stoicism is a school of philosophy founded (308 BC) in Athens by Zeno of Citium. It teaches self-control and detachment from distracting emotions, sometimes interpreted as an indifference to pleasure or pain. Stoics believe that this allows one to be a clear thinker, level-headed and unbiased. In practice, Stoicism is intended to imbue an individual with virtue, wisdom, and integrity of character. Students are encouraged to be altruistic as well as psychologically independent from society, regarding it as an unruly and often unreasonable entity while encouraging active engagement in improving society.[citation needed]\n\nVirtue, reason, and natural law are prime directives. By mastering passions and emotions, stoics believe it is possible to overcome the discord of the outside world and find peace within oneself. Stoicism holds that passion distorts truth, and that the pursuit of truth is virtuous. Greek philosophers such as Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and later Roman thinkers such as Cicero, Seneca the Younger, Marcus Aurelius, Cato the Younger, Dio Chrysostom, and Epictetus are associated with Stoicism. In Cicero's case, it should be emphasised that while he shared many of the moral tenets of Stoicism, he was not a Stoic himself but an eclectic. Stoic philosophy is usually contrasted with Epicureanism.\nHistory\n \nZeno of CitiumStoicism first appeared in Athens in the Hellenistic period around 301 BC and was introduced by Zeno of Citium. He taught in the famous stoa poikile (the painted porch) from which his philosophy got its name. Central to his teachings was the law of morality being the same as nature. During its initial phase, it was generally seen as a back-to-nature movement critical of superstitions and taboos. The philosophical detachment also encompassed pain and misfortune, good or bad experiences, as well as life or death. Zeno often challenged prohibitions, traditions and customs. Another tenet was the emphasis placed on love for all other beings.\n\nHis ideas developed from those of the Cynics, whose founder, Antisthenes, had been a disciple of Socrates. Zeno's most important follower was Chrysippus, who was responsible for much of what we now call Stoicism. The Stoics provided a unified account of the world, consisting of formal logic, materialistic physics and naturalistic ethics. Of these, they emphasized ethics as the main focus of human knowledge, though their logical theories were to be of more interest for many later philosophers. Later Roman Stoics focused on promoting a life in harmony with the universe, over which one has no direct control. Modern philosophy, contrary to original stoicism, often associates stoicism with determinism, as opposed to the Judeo-christian doctrine of Free Will.\n\nStoic ethics and virtues\nThe ancient Stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used meant different things in the past than they do today. The word stoic has come to mean unemotional or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from passion by following reason. But the Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions, only to avoid emotional troubles by developing clear judgement and inner calm through diligent practice of logic, reflection, and concentration.\n\nBorrowing from the Cynics, the foundation of Stoic ethics is that good lies in the state of the soul itself; in wisdom and self-control. Stoic ethics stressed the rule: "Follow where reason leads." One must therefore strive to be free of the passions (hate, fear, pain, pleasure, distress, appetite, etc.), bearing in mind that the ancient meaning of passion was "anguish" or "suffering"[1]—somewhat different to the modern use of the word.\n\nThe idea was to be free of suffering (which the Stoics called passion) through apatheia (απαθεια) (Greek) or apathy, where apathy was understood in the ancient sense—being objective or having "clear judgement"—rather than simple indifference,
862902
Theoretically, if they are saying the phrases you describe then they are not actually atheists. how can someone you don't believe in damn anything? Seriously I don't get especially annoyed by this one thing that atheists do but there are other things such as being illogical and pigheaded which usually bother me more!!
1007304
None whatsoever.  I'm not religious.\n\nI am, however, a good, moral person.  So dont judge me.
992277
I am atheist, so I do not love any god.  I am atheist, so I love humanity, individuality and respect for life.
713862
No.  I don't.  AND I'm good people.  Imagine that.\n\nAmazing, isn't it?\n\nNo.... it's not amazing.  What's REALLY amazing is that some people DO think it's amazing that an atheist could be a good person.  "Whoa, that atheist isn't out scoring dope, hookers and stolen cars?  Unbelievable!"\n\nGet it through your heads, people... religion doesn't have a monopoly on humanity, compassion, virtue and morality.
907649
I say you are a good Atheist, who tries to do the moral thing, and when you fail, you apologize and try to make amends.  Nothing wrong with you.
121827
I think Atheists have a right to believe as they do, and I do not think they are stupid for their beliefs.  The lifestyles of different Atheists vary, so it is hard to comment on an Atheist "Lifestyle."  In my opinion, Atheists could benefit from certain practices that are usually associated with religion, but do not necessarily have to be.  For example, daily affirmations of what is good in life, and daily reflections on how to live the best life, and meditation to strengthen one's qualities and so on.  \n\nYes, they have a place in heaven, if there is a heaven.
682660
The bible really doesn't touch upon that, interesting question.\n\nWhile i'm personally an atheist, i've spent most of my life as a christian, and the thing to remember is that you shouldn't take it literally, you should take it figuratively. While i don't agree with it as a source of knowledge, if interpreted as a behavioural code, it's mostly alright.
944478
Nope, though i guess it depends on your idea of "God" in the first place. I guess i believe in a non-interventionist god; the guy (or gal, or whatever!) is far too busy dealing with the infinite nature of the universe to be bothered with one measly town of pretty measly people/animals. One of the greatest fallacies in the human conception of god is that we are the guy's greatest priority. We're soooooo vain!!!!!!
985866
I am not an atheist, but I know some people who are. It seems to me that they reject the definition of God that has been given by the standard, traditional religions.  Perhaps a person will decide to proclaim herself to be an atheist because she feels that the modern English term "God" has been so corrupted by the ideas of closed-minded church people that the concept no longer contains any value. And I would just about have to agree with that. If I mention the idea of God as a universal life-force or as the interpersonal spirit of goodness and compassion to one of my atheist friends, they might agree with that, but still the name "God" has a disagreeable connotation to them.\nReligious language is full of metaphor. Some of the most simple, basic terms of religion are such large, sweeping, all-encompassing concepts that it takes many pages of erudition to even explain what we mean when we say the name "God".\nWhen you say "God", you are implying a whole big set of ideas. Atheists are often people who simply cannot agree with some of the ideas that they have heard being attached to that name.
974188
Atheistic and philosophical.  Non materialistic.
526934
yes, atheist are the super power, the almighty, the great minds, the amazing lords, the Divine, the "I make my own path."\n\nIn case you don't know I'm being sarcastic just to prove my point. Look around you. True believers are just, compassionate, humble, and show this simply by doing what is right--yes you will say: who is to say what is right? when you have to hide anything you already know. So never be a liar in your belief as long as it is just, compassionate, humble and chances are you will be right. If not, just ask yourself, what would Jesus have done?\n\nSo, it's not only atheist but fake believers(and there are more of those than there are atheists) that have created this world, and don't blame G-- for it.
840398
I think it would be more appropriate to call that person an agnostic, one who is not certain that God exists but is open to the moral code of the faith.  Tradition, theology, ideas and behavior are different things.  One may find value in one but not another.