Nietzsche's "God is dead" projects the idea that we have killed Him and now have to create our own values and morals, which he says is the most life affirming thing. He says that the "herd" mentality is having all the same morals and values as other under God, leveling everyone off. This brings up the question of if He ever existed at all, or maybe we just thought he was alive, as a way to sort of justify morals and values without having to create our own. With the idea of God being dead, another question is raised on how people will react to this statement. Some will be prepared to create their own values, again the most life-affirming thing, and be self-reliant, whereas others, the herd, will completely fall apart and not know how to live (a very slavish thing). As we discussed, they were so dependent on this "manufactured morality" under which the masses served to, that they do not have the strength that is so great as to be able to create their own morals.
When we first discussed this in class, I first thought that the "God is dead" statement would have gone in a different direction. I thought that another direction it could have taken is thinking about it in the point of view of these strong, devout, believers in God. With these people, if someone says that "God is dead" I would think that first of all they wouldn't, at least immediately, believe it and if they did, its not like they would completely fall apart. I feel like people who were strong in religious practice and devout believers in God would be strong enough to keep the morals and values that they found vital. They lived their lives according to these values and morals and attached their own meanings to them to adjust to their individual self. So, I almost think that being able to keep the values that they found in God and not completely letting go of them just because God might be "dead" to some people is just as "strong" as being able to create your own morals. I would think that the strongest believers in God at the time would be able to build on this "manufactured morality" and make it adjust to their own lives, even without a God. I understand that these morals would be nothing without God, i suppose, but being able to uphold the morals even without and being able to again, build on them according to each individual life, is being strong as well. I almost think it is unfair to say that these people would be trying to depend on a God that's already dead because that is how they were able to create their morals--I guess that's still herdish, but is it herdish still if they can apply these morals and if these morals are generally good for their own everyday life? If they truly believe His morals are how they want to live their own personal lives, and can adjust accordingly, would it even matter if God was dead or alive? Again, is it just as strong to be able to keep the same morals even "without" God?