An Epicurean might say, “Man has its own nature, and there is no such thing as God, so there would be no afterlife. But even if there was a God, no one must fear him because he doesn’t control human nature or destiny,” (Stoics vs. Epicureans). The first part states the idea that there is no God, also known as atheism. The second part contradicts a pantheist, or Stoics, belief by saying that even if a God existed, he doesn’t control human nature or destiny; the roots of pantheism and atheism are also very distinct; Pantheism, derived from the Greek word pantheos, pan (meaning “all, of everything”) and theos (meaning “God, divine”), and atheism, derived from the Greek word atheos meaning “without god(s)”. This would contradict a person’s views because it would make them look primarily to science to answer questions of right and …show more content…
Epicurean teachings of reality will say that “everything that exist must be made up of eternal atoms. Apart from these, nothing else exists. If God or gods exist, they too must be material things. God is not the creator of anything, but himself is the result of a purposeless and random event,” (Stoics vs. Epicureans). Showing similarity to a Stoic’s understanding, everything is made up of atoms which is matter. If God to must be a material thing, matter, then he too is created by something. However, if a god is the highest possible material form, then this can lead back to the previous statement about how an Epicurean would primarily use science to answer questions, then they could say that out of the big bang, a theory of how the earth was created, a God or god(s) was created out of this random