NationStates Jolt Archive

what does that particular saying mean.I've heard it a million times but never quite got it.Can someone please explain what "God is dead" means?

what does that particular saying mean.I've heard it a million times but never quite got it.Can someone please explain what "God is dead" means?

I think it's just an excuse for you to be as hedonistic, feel good as you want to be. Personally if there is a God, he couldn't be dead as I don't think he was every really physically alive.

what does that particular saying mean.I've heard it a million times but never quite got it.Can someone please explain what "God is dead" means?
I think it refers to the belief that humanity is losing faith in religion and moving on to science.

what does that particular saying mean.I've heard it a million times but never quite got it.Can someone please explain what "God is dead" means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead


Now I feel like an ass.

No, I haven't. I'm quite fine, actually.

But thanks for the concern.

does anybody else find it to be rather funny that this thread is right below the "a great man has died" thread as of now?

(okay will not be any longer but..hey)

what does that particular saying mean.I've heard it a million times but never quite got it.Can someone please explain what "God is dead" means?



It's a statement made by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Basically, he meant that moral effects had no real validity in the world and people should decide for themselves what right and wrong was. That's a pretty simplified version, but I don't really have time to divulge the full details of Nietzschean philosophy...

It's a statement made by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Basically, he meant that moral effects had no real validity in the world and people should decide for themselves what right and wrong was. That's a pretty simplified version, but I don't really have time to divulge the full details of Nietzschean philosophy...

I understand nietzsche but that one particular phrase I couldn't get.Anyway thanks for clearing that up.

what does that particular saying mean.I've heard it a million times but never quite got it.Can someone please explain what "God is dead" means?

That the widespread belief that a divine entity who is the source of all morality and ultimate arbiter of all deeds is no longer existent in the Western world, or more particularly, in Europe.

Its not true. I'm definetly alive.

Nietzsche is Dead.

-God

Nietzsche is Dead.

-God

12 Posts. You guys are getting slow....;)

Nietzsche is Dead.

-God


I was going to say that, but it's been done to death...

God is not dead. I know this to be true, for He is, at this very moment, sitting on my couch having a bong. Lucifer still hasn't come back the weed that God sent him out for, so the mooch is smoking mine. I should start charging Him rent.

Basically, Nietzsche argued that God was just a figurehead that would soon fall away because of the way science had rendered him obsolete. Nietzsche considered this to be a bad thing, however, because he believed it would leave humanity open to nihilism as without God, there would be no force to enforce moral values.

Nietzsche was trying to find a basis for new values to prevent humanity from falling into nihilism, values based on nature rather than the will of a nonexistant being. The problem is that his cure was probably worse than the disease; his new values were quite brutal to say the least.

Basically, Nietzsche argued that God was just a figurehead that would soon fall away because of the way science had rendered him obsolete. Nietzsche considered this to be a bad thing, however, because he believed it would leave humanity open to nihilism as without God, there would be no force to enforce moral values.

Nietzsche was trying to find a basis for new values to prevent humanity from falling into nihilism, values based on nature rather than the will of a nonexistant being. The problem is that his cure was probably worse than the disease; his new values were quite brutal to say the least.


Exactly, he was trying to apply a new means for humanity to perceive their values, unconstrained by religious opinions and "herd" morality. In his own words, he was questioning the validity of conventional values themselves.


As to the brutality of his new values, I find it's a bit of a grey area with Nietzsche. On the one hand, there are certain things he says about eradicating the weak and the ill-formed which sound kind of extreme, but then, in other parts, he uses the terms "weak" and "ill-formed" to describe a person's soul in itself, as in the status of their actual character. You can either interpret the eradication theory literally, like the Nazis did, and cause all kinds of havoc, or take it as a metaphor of eradicating the weak and deformed aspects of your own character and use it for self-improvement.

God is not dead. I know this to be true, for He is, at this very moment, sitting on my couch having a bong. Lucifer still hasn't come back the weed that God sent him out for, so the mooch is smoking mine. I should start charging Him rent.
Are you crazy?! GOD DOES NOT SIN!!!:mad:

Are you crazy?! GOD DOES NOT SIN!!!:mad:

Logically speaking, if God is the source of all morality then anything God does is virtuous. Therefore, it wouldn't matter what he did as it would become virtuous by definition.

*wanders off smoking weed*

Logically speaking, if God is the source of all morality then anything God does is virtuous. Therefore, it wouldn't matter what he did as it would become virtuous by definition.

*wanders off smoking weed*


Yep, it's the ultimate alibi...

Nietzsche is Dead.
-God
But then by that proof, God is Nietzche?

Are you crazy?! GOD DOES NOT SIN!!!:mad:

Indeed. After all, he never impregnated someone elses wife without her explicit consent ;)

Indeed. After all, he never impregnated someone elses wife without her explicit consent ;)

Here's an interesting hypothetical question, what would have happened (from a Christian point of view) if Mary had terminated the pregnancy?

Here's an interesting hypothetical question, what would have happened (from a Christian point of view) if Mary had terminated the pregnancy?

Then they would worship Brian Christ instead of Jesus.

On a more serious note: were it not for the way God treated Jesus, breeding him with the explicit goal to have him die a horrible death by torture, abusing another mans wife, letting his son and his parents be persecuted and suffer many hardships and then claiming he "did it all out of love" I would respect Him a whole lot more.

Nietzsche is Dead.

-God

One of my favourite "quotes" :)

As for the origin and context of "God is dead" ...

Have you heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly, "I seek God! I seek God!" As many of those who do not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter...

Whither is God," he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are murderers.... God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him...

Friedrich Nietzsche. The Gay Science (1882), section 126

I have always understood this to mean that in the Nietzsche's era sprituality was unfashionable in many parts of society. Some people were ( and I guess still are ) of the opinion that a rational, scientific mind cannot have a spritual bent. So, "God is dead" because our inability to reconcile our rational and spiritual selves "killed" him.

Are you crazy?! GOD DOES NOT SIN!!!:mad:

Which part was the sin? Smoking weed, or smoking MY weed?

Zombie Nietzsche LIVES!

--Zombie Nietzsche while munching on brains

Are you crazy?! GOD DOES NOT SIN!!!:mad:


Sin? I've seen nothing in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not smoke thy neighbour's weed"
In legislation? Yes. Scripture? No.

Nietzsche is Dead.

-God

we are everything but.

Sin? I've seen nothing in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not smoke thy neighbour's weed"
In legislation? Yes. Scripture? No.

Exodus 20:17 :

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Referring to the title; If you believed in God how scary would that statement be?

Yours concernedly (lol)
~RL

God is dead

You heard about George Best then?

Exodus 20:17 :

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."



I didn't mention the word "covet". The original post was joking that a joint was being shared amongst them... Thus no coveting is involved

You heard about George Best then?


What? Is your version of God a drunken wife beater?!

what does that particular saying mean.I've heard it a million times but never quite got it.Can someone please explain what "God is dead" means?
The Idea came originally from Nietzsche (a German philosopher) He told a tale of a "madman who lit his lamp in the morning..." The madman replies to his detractors "... God is dead and we have killed him..."
The quote was reiterated by Time many years ago in an article titled Is God dead? it talked of the decline of the church in America. As church attendance began to swell again in more recent years they ran another article entitled Is god alive again?n

What? Is your version of God a drunken wife beater?!
Nope, just the greatest man ever to set foot on a pitch, who had a terrible time battling his own demons.

Nope, just the greatest man ever to set foot on a pitch, who had a terrible time battling his own demons.


God has his own demons? That definitely throws things into an entirely new light

God has his own demons? That definitely throws things into an entirely new light
Well, the Devil was an Angel.

Well, the Devil was an Angel.

And angels are devils?

Well, the Devil was an Angel.


A devil isn't the same as a demon. Devils are, as you point out, angels that have fallen from Heaven. Demons were never angels to begin with.


Pointless information of the day :rolleyes:

Demons were never angels to begin with.


Where did you get this idea from?

A devil isn't the same as a demon. Devils are, as you point out, angels that have fallen from Heaven. Demons were never angels to begin with.


Pointless information of the day :rolleyes:
Pedant.

Where did you get this idea from?


What do you mean "idea"? It's not just something I made up, you know. It's in several books of mine that analyse the mythology behind demons/devils etc. Devils are angels that rebelled against God.

Demons are evil spirits that rank lower than devils. Demons started off in Greek mythology as "daemons", spirits of human conscience, one good, one evil. But since Christianity viewed any spirit other than the Holy Spirit evil, all "daemons" later were portrayed as evil spirits - hence demons.

Pedant.


Sorry, wasn't trying to be. Just happens to be one of those subjects that I babble about a lot

what does that particular saying mean.I've heard it a million times but never quite got it.Can someone please explain what "God is dead" means?

It means we are going to have a funeral and pray to God to save His soul. :eek:

What do you mean "idea"? It's not just something I made up, you know. It's in several books of mine that analyse the mythology behind demons/devils etc. Devils are angels that rebelled against God.

Demons are evil spirits that rank lower than devils. Demons started off in Greek mythology as "daemons", spirits of human conscience, one good, one evil. But since Christianity viewed any spirit other than the Holy Spirit evil, all "daemons" later were portrayed as evil spirits - hence demons.

I hate to be the one to tell you this but the Bible predates greek mythology. In the book of Job (the first book writen in the Bible) it tells of only 1 devil who is a fallen angel. Some historians date the writing of job to more than a 2000 years before Homer existed.

I hate to be the one to tell you this but the Bible predates greek mythology. In the book of Job (the first book writen in the Bible) it tells of only 1 devil who is a fallen angel. Some historians date the writing of job to more than a 2000 years before Homer existed.

Hate to tell you this, but the Bible as we know it came long after Greek mytholigy. Job is only one book that was included in what we know as the Bible.

Hate to tell you this, but the Bible as we know it came long after Greek mytholigy. Job is only one book that was included in what we know as the Bible.
Greek mythology is not one book with one either so what is your point???

I hate to be the one to tell you this but the Bible predates greek mythology. In the book of Job (the first book writen in the Bible) it tells of only 1 devil who is a fallen angel. Some historians date the writing of job to more than a 2000 years before Homer existed.


The Bible predates Greek Mythology, but the concept of demons I'm refering to came about during the progression of Christianity, not at its founding. While beings such as Azazel appear in Deuteronomy, they were only considered actual "demons" at a later date http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(mythology)



In any case, the definition of a demon is an evil spirit, not the same as the Devil

Exactly, he was trying to apply a new means for humanity to perceive their values, unconstrained by religious opinions and "herd" morality. In his own words, he was questioning the validity of conventional values themselves.


As to the brutality of his new values, I find it's a bit of a grey area with Nietzsche. On the one hand, there are certain things he says about eradicating the weak and the ill-formed which sound kind of extreme, but then, in other parts, he uses the terms "weak" and "ill-formed" to describe a person's soul in itself, as in the status of their actual character. You can either interpret the eradication theory literally, like the Nazis did, and cause all kinds of havoc, or take it as a metaphor of eradicating the weak and deformed aspects of your own character and use it for self-improvement.

True, but I still don't like Nietzsche. While I agree with many of his basic ideas, perhaps even the highly shocking idea that conventional morality is highly flawed, I'm not sure how his proposed ethics are all that innovative. Don't plenty of people already hurt those they consider weak without remorse and back aristocracy?

In many ways, Nietzscheanism strikes me as a new tablet carved from the same shit. Master morality seems like the flipside of slave morality. Yes, it's shocking, but it's really just saying what many politicians and businessmen seem to believe, anyway.

True, but I still don't like Nietzsche. While I agree with many of his basic ideas, perhaps even the highly shocking idea that conventional morality is highly flawed, I'm not sure how his proposed ethics are all that innovative. Don't plenty of people already hurt those they consider weak without remorse and back aristocracy?

In many ways, Nietzscheanism strikes me as a new tablet carved from the same shit. Master morality seems like the flipside of slave morality. Yes, it's shocking, but it's really just saying what many politicians and businessmen seem to believe, anyway.


Isn't all philosophy sooner or later a new tablet carved from the same shit? Humanity is nowhere near as innovative with its philosophies as it likes to believe, in my opinion. Though I have to say, you make some interesting points. Especially with the "master morality" view

The Bible predates Greek Mythology, but the concept of demons I'm refering to came about during the progression of Christianity, not at its founding. While beings such as Azazel appear in Deuteronomy, they were only considered actual "demons" at a later date http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(mythology)



In any case, the definition of a demon is an evil spirit, not the same as the Devil
True the devil and evil spirit are not the same. In the same way that human and baseball player are not the same thing, and yet can refer to the same being. To avoid a decent into semantics let me define a few terms in the common American understanding (as apposed to the Greek understanding) of them. Devil the chief evil entity of the fallen angels usually pictured as being red and ugly in appearance and carrying a pitch fork or trident. In the Biblical view he would be pictured as an attractive angel fallen in deed but not necessarily fallen in appearance. Fallen angels refer to all angels who fell from heaven with Lucifer (or Satan). Demons refer to those fallen angels who "posses" humans to control them or who have done so in the past.

Isn't all philosophy sooner or later a new tablet carved from the same shit? Humanity is nowhere near as innovative with its philosophies as it likes to believe, in my opinion.

Good point.

Though I have to say, you make some interesting points. Especially with the "master morality" view

Indeed, I've been looking for ways to refute Nietzsche for a while, so I've managed to find weaknesses like these.

Greek mythology is not one book with one either so what is your point???

Point is the Bible did not come before Greek mythology as you stated. One book of what is now the Bible did. Just a technical thing and not very important I guess.

God is dead. ~Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead. ~God

God is dead. ~Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead. ~God

You're 37 posts late.

I didn't mention the word "covet". The original post was joking that a joint was being shared amongst them... Thus no coveting is involved

Well, I'm sure He did covet it. He was eyeing off the bowl for a while before he started smoking it.

But if all God does is virtuous, and therefore not a sin, and God has been smoking my weed... Does this mean I'm going to be getting a lot of Christians coming around to my house and smoking my weed? That'd be a real downer.

Of course God is dead. KIRK KILLED HIM!

Indeed, I've been looking for ways to refute Nietzsche for a while, so I've managed to find weaknesses like these.

This is hardly a refutation though: more a statement that you just don't like the idea of the master morality, no?

Of course God is dead. KIRK KILLED HIM!

Yes! God's real name was Gary Mitchell!

This is hardly a refutation though: more a statement that you just don't like the idea of the master morality, no?

Maybe, but master morality creates slave morality. Slaves only resist and hate masters because the masters rule over them. Since both submission (life-denial) and resistance (ressentiment) are expressions of slave morality, there is nothing a slave can do. The master has only himself to blame for the actions of his slaves.

I mean, it's a catch-22 in a Nietzschean régime. If the slaves are dissatisfied with their lives and overthrow their master, they are engaging in ressentiment and restricting the wills to power of the strong, and hense promoting nihilism. If they accept their lot in life, it's because they are weak and unworthy of being free. See, there is no way out.

Maybe, but master morality creates slave morality. Slaves only resist and hate masters because the masters rule over them. Since both submission (life-denial) and resistance (ressentiment) are expressions of slave morality, there is nothing a slave can do. The master has only himself to blame for the actions of his slaves.

Master morality can create slave morality: in Nietzsche's model the slave morality has only ever come into being once, with the rise of Judaeo-Christianity. Other cultures existed where the 'slaves' still possessed the values of their masters, and did not see themselves as blessed due to their suffering. A Hellenic slave granted manumission would raise themselves to be a master, whereas a Christian under the pre-Constantine Romans granted freedom would continue to hold their life-denying values.

I mean, it's a catch-22 in a Nietzschean régime. If the slaves are dissatisfied with their lives and overthrow their master, they are engaging in ressentiment and restricting the wills to power of the strong, and hense promoting nihilism.

The method by which the slaves 'overthrow' their masters is by spreading their own slave morality to them. It is not by escaping from their own slave morality, which is the position Nietzsche asserts they should adopt.

If they physically overthrow their masters, then they are not restricting the WTP of the strong, but rather showing their own WTP to be stronger than that of their one time masters - and as such are not promoting nihilism.


Aside from which, 'nihilism' has a particular definition within Nietzsche - the self-contradictory position of condemning all values systems - whereas what you seem to be talking about here are life-denying values or naysaying, rather than nihilism.

If they accept their lot in life, it's because they are weak and unworthy of being free. See, there is no way out.

The slave morality is not just an acceptance of the lot, but rather a viewing of it as a blessing and an embracing of it.

God is dead is perhaps one of the most commonly misunderstood phrases in all of 19th century literature. The phrase should not be taken literally, as in, "God is now physically dead," or, "Jesus, both the son of God and God himself, died on the cross"; rather, it is Nietzsche's controversial way of saying that God has ceased to be a reckoning force in the people's lives, even if they don't recognize it. After all, the philosopher is famous for his "punning" writing style that can be easily perceived as ambiguity. Thus, according to Nietzsche, it is time to transcend both the concept of God and the "good vs. evil" dichotomy found within most religions. The phrase is also commonly misunderstood as an exultation, whereas it is clear from the full context that it is instead a lamentation.

The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in a cosmic order. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic/physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves -- to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law. This leads to nihilism, and it is what Nietzsche worked to find a solution for by re-evaluating the foundations of human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than the Christian values most people refuse to look beyond.

Nietzsche believed that a natural ground for morality should be sought in order to avoid this calamity. He believed that the majority of men did not recognize (or refused to acknowledge) this death out of the deepest-seated fear. Therefore, when the death did begin to become widely acknowledged, people would despair and nihilism would become rampant, as well as the relativistic belief that human will is a law unto itself -- anything goes and all is permitted. This is partly why Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic. Only by having the foresight to re-establish human values on a new, natural basis could this nightmare future be avoided.
:sniper:
Nietzsche believed there could be positive possibilities for humans without God. Relinquishing the belief in God opens the way for human's creative abilities to fully develop. The Christian God, with his arbitrary commands and prohibitions, would no longer stand in the way, so human beings might stop turning their eyes toward a supernatural realm and begin to acknowledge the value of this world. The recognition that "God is dead" would be like a blank canvas. It is a freedom to become something new, different, creative -- a freedom to be something without being forced to accept the baggage of the past. Like an open sea, this can be both exhilarating and terrifying. It would be a tremendous responsibility, and, Nietzsche believed, many would not be up to it. Most people rely on rules and authorities to tell them what to do, what to value, how to live. The people who eventually learn to create their lives anew will represent a new stage in human transformation, that is, as Nietzsche advocated, an increasing measure to cultivate human qualities that continually strive for mastery and refinement in all matters, thus extolling existence.

It is widely believed that Nietzsche himself "proclaimed" the "death of God", but it should be acknowledged that in Die fröhliche Wissenschaft he put the words into the mouth of a "madman". In this passage, the man is described running through a marketplace shouting, "God is dead! God is dead!" He arouses some amusement; no one takes him seriously. Frustrated, the madman smashes his lantern on the ground, crying out that he has come too soon: people cannot yet see that they have killed God. He goes on to say, "This prodigious event is still on its way, and is traveling – it has not yet reached men's ears. Lightning and thunder need time, the light of the stars needs time, deeds need time, even after they are done, to be seen and heard." He does, however, also have his protagonist in the opening to Also sprach speak the words, commenting to himself after visiting a hermit who, every day, sings songs and lives to glorify his god.

Only by having the foresight to re-establish human values on a new, natural basis could this nightmare future be avoided.

A natural basis for a system of values is about the last thing that Nietzsche was arguing for: instead he wanted a self-consciously artificial and invented system of values which mankind could impiose upon the world, rather than drawing a set of values from it.

Of course God is dead. But remember that Elvis lives!

It's a statement made by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Basically, he meant that moral effects had no real validity in the world and people should decide for themselves what right and wrong was. That's a pretty simplified version, but I don't really have time to divulge the full details of Nietzschean philosophy...


Well, we have pretty much been doing this all along.

The slave morality is not just an acceptance of the lot, but rather a viewing of it as a blessing and an embracing of it.

Then what about ressentiment, a key element of slave morality according to Nietzsche? Nietzsche also condemned that as well. Isn't resenting ones lot instead of embracing it thus still bad?

Then what about ressentiment, a key element of slave morality according to Nietzsche? Nietzsche also condemned that as well. Isn't resenting ones lot instead of embracing it thus still bad?

The slave morality doesn't actually resent the position as a slave, but rather that the masters are not in the same position. For Nietzsche it is one of the great tricks of Judaeo-Christianity that in its expression of ressentiment it doesn't seek to punish the masters directly, but rather place them in a position where they too are 'blessed'.

A natural basis for a system of values is about the last thing that Nietzsche was arguing for: instead he wanted a self-consciously artificial and invented system of values which mankind could impiose upon the world, rather than drawing a set of values from it.

I fully disagree.

I fully disagree.

There are no moral phenomena, only a moral interpretation of phenomena...

BGE: 108.

The slave morality doesn't actually resent the position as a slave, but rather that the masters are not in the same position. For Nietzsche it is one of the great tricks of Judaeo-Christianity that in its expression of ressentiment it doesn't seek to punish the masters directly, but rather place them in a position where they too are 'blessed'.

So basically, what Nietzsche hated was the "Blessed are the meek" stuff that pervaded Christianity, where slaves endured their slavery by declaring themselves to be better than their owners while being too cowardly to actually fight back?

So basically, what Nietzsche hated was the "Blessed are the meek" stuff that pervaded Christianity, where slaves endured their slavery by declaring themselves to be better than their owners while being too cowardly to actually fight back?

Yeah. Slave morality revolves around creating views that try and portray weakness as a virtue, for example, turning the other cheek- slaves that were incapable of fighting back, instead claimed that they were simply choosing not to fight back, and were therefore superior to their masters. It's a way of achieving a sense of vengeance without actually having to do anything. Their revenge isn't acted out, but an illusion of having gotten revenge is created amongst them

So basically, what Nietzsche hated was the "Blessed are the meek" stuff that pervaded Christianity, where slaves endured their slavery by declaring themselves to be better than their owners while being too cowardly to actually fight back?

Give that man a cigar.

There is one thing I still don't understand, though. Why is affirming life inherently better than denying it? Why is nihilism objectively bad?

There is one thing I still don't understand, though. Why is affirming life inherently better than denying it? Why is nihilism objectively bad?


Because it lacks any real purpose, and negates natural instincts of survival, and therefore humanity's link to the natural world...

There is one thing I still don't understand, though. Why is affirming life inherently better than denying it? Why is nihilism objectively bad?

Nothing is inherently better or worse. Nietzsche has set up a constructed set of practices (mainly the arts) which he hope to encourage, and for him he classifies those things which lead towards them as better and those that lead away from them as worse.

Because it lacks any real purpose, and negates natural instincts of survival, and therefore humanity's link to the natural world...

Yes, but why is natural instinct inherently good?

Nothing is inherently better or worse. Nietzsche has set up a constructed set of practices (mainly the arts) which he hope to encourage, and for him he classifies those things which lead towards them as better and those that lead away from them as worse.

So I could simply create my own set of values and there would be nothing he could object to? If nothing is inherently good or bad, then what is to stop me from deciding on my own set of practices?

So I could simply create my own set of values and there would be nothing he could object to? If nothing is inherently good or bad, then what is to stop me from deciding on my own set of practices?

Absolutely nothing. God remains dead.

Yes, but why is natural instinct inherently good?
...


I'll agree with Grampus with the statement that nothing is inherently good or bad. Nietzsche's definition of "good" was "Whatever heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man" The heightening of a sense of power would be linked with instincts of survival, the fight to stay alive, to remain at the top of the food chain, in a sense, and achieve a sense of power through that means

Absolutely nothing. God remains dead.

No he isn't. He's pining for the fjords.

Absolutely nothing. God remains dead.

Wouldn't that mean that Nietzsche was more or less stating a personal opinion rather than a philosophical fact?