Even before my trust in the general premise of Christianity waned and disappeared, I had a general inclination for Stoicism, in its practice of self-disciplined calmness when facing difficult, uncomfortable, or tragic moments in life.
Stoicism says that the source of higher reasoning is a benevolent divine entity—the Logos—which permeates the whole cosmos. In this, all things are bound by Fate, so the best a person can do is live an ethical life: doing good, and accepting that things are outside of their control. On the surface the praxis was appealing, but my perspective has shifted in recent years toward interpreting the emphasis on submission to ‘Fate’ as a means to discourage challenging power structures which keep emperors above slaves. Stoicism as a social system discourages upsetting the status quo.
Mithras would be right to slay the bull.
Having a deep interest in religions and mythologies in general, I have been trying to study them beyond the limits of my upbringing, overlapping with this decline in my opinion of Stoicism over the past half-decade.
I found a casual appreciation for the debate between Nihilism, Existentialism, and Absurdism. I slip between the three, depending on where in my annual schedule of depressive episodes I happen to be.
I also think Epicureanism, an egalitarian and inclusive ancient rival to Stoicism, deserves a resurgence. It may easily be revised to accommodate for the discovery of quarks, leptons, and bosons.
As I surveyed the Dharmic traditions, I was caught by the intersection of Buddhism with Taoism. I think Buddhism is amenable to a secular mind, and I have been gravitating toward the practice of Zen. I feel at home in its emphasis on existing in the now.