[bitexploder]

The original stoics counted "nature" as something close to a proper God. I think not a lot is lost transmuting "nature" to be something more appropriate for modern interpretation of the philosophy though. Nature in a modern interpretation can be thought of the natural order of the universe and the way it is. Although there was also an implied fatalism (e.g. the future is predetermined) to their concept of "nature" which would not sit well with many modern stoics. Just adding some context for what "natural law" is and how modern philosophers have taken to viewing it.

I think many people lack a cohesive life philosophy and stoicism is a keen observation of the human condition that rings true today. Not a lot has truly changed and the ancient Greeks and other philosophers had as much of a valid viewpoint of the human condition as we do today. In many areas science has now filled in blanks that were given more mystical properties in ancient times. I could go on, but Stoics were not dour and fatalistic about the future, their philosophy strongly encouraged them to live in the moment.

[sethammons]

My understanding about logos (nature / god), it is the governing reason of the universe. Because of logos being driven by reason, that which happens in nature or is natural is grounded in reason and serves a purpose. In this way, it is not much different than "God works in mysterious ways." It is a crutch upon which you can place acceptance.

[bitexploder]

I think that is about right.It does not change a lot about living with Stoicism to abandon or update their "nature" to something modern and sensible to the practitioner. For a agnostic/atheist it more or less does not matter in my opinion.