The instincts are not immoral

Nietzsche thought real life was immoral, he saw no morality in the instincts, he thought the instincts were Dionysian, chaotic, disorderly, power for the sake of power. So how is that dynamic different from the morality of traditional religions which also, in reality, finds the instincts of life immoral? The difference is that Nietzsche embraces the immorality, the relativity of values and power, whereas religion condemns immorality and offers its abstract-metaphysical-orderly-morality which humanity is called to follow. Nietzsche's position is not unlike the Satanist's whose philosophy depends on the values of religion to overthrow (although Nietzsche was a far greater thinker than any Satanist.) Freud too took up Nietzsche's position only he changed the will to power to the will to sex, which he wanted to release from its traditional religious “repression,” which largely succeeded in the chaotic modern sexual revolution.

Both ways are mistaken. The instincts are not Dionysian and chaotic even if on the surface they seem so, and the instincts are not immoral and evil and therefore in need of repressing by abstract religious metaphysics. The zenith of the instincts, the activating Super-Id, or the Spirit-Will, seeks real Godhood in material and supermaterial evolution, while being shaped by outside evolution and selection, and for this reason our values and morals need to be in harmony with or refined (not repressed or made disorderly) in the sacred direction of evolution to Godhood, which nature ultimately seeks.  Traditional religion saw the first glimpse of God in the Inward Path with ascetic discipline, which now is transformed, but retained, in the Outward Path of evolution to real Godhood.