	An objection to my argument would be that under certain conditions, we should believe on the basic of beneficial, not epistemic, reasons. William James believes that you should seek truth by any means, even at the risk of error, and that evidence does not have to be present in order to believe. He likened believing in God to making friends, as you are not likely to make friends if you do not have trust, while God is not going to wait for you to gather sufficient evidence that he is real. I counter that it would be both immoral and irrational to believe in something that lacks support of evidence. If you put a gun to an atheist's head and force him to believe in God, he would not be a morally and intellectually responsible person. He would not be thinking rationally even though he would then believe in God.
	We are responsible for creating meaning in our lives. Believing that religion gives meaning to life is narrow-minded since there is much more to life, and that line of thinking can be detrimental to society. Wagering with your beliefs can be a waste of valuable time and energy. It is natural to contemplate why and how we got here, but sometimes you just have to live.
