Bullshit.
You don’t understand the difference between god and a personal belief. It is possible to have a personal belief in an impersonal god. Perfectly reasonable.
You are twisting it. Just as deGrasse Tyson accused theists of trying to get Einstein associated with theism, atheists also try to get Einstein associated with atheism. 
We don’t have to get him to associate with atheism because he does it all on his own by not believing in a personal god or religion…
You don’t understand the difference between definitions. Take them away and no one is talking about “god”. That is what the idea of “god” is, personal existing deity in the sky who controls things. You’re the ones twisting definitions around saying reality is god, nature is god… All this garbage and twisting when there are already terms for those… Which are reality and nature.
Either god is personal belief or you’re not talking about “god”. You can’t have self aware creation without self aware existence before creation. Outside of that, we were never created because the created needs a creator, which we did not have one. It happened randomly in the Universe. So please explain how you are talking about god outside being a personal “god”. Oh wait, I know the answer because you and James are talking about reality, not god. You just term it as you will and that is the type of stuff that confuses everyone else.
You can’t take a term born in fantasy land “god” and all of a sudden use it for objectivity/actuality.
A personal god cares about you as an individual … If you pray and you are worthy then He will cure your diseases, get you a job, manipulate the lottery so that you win. He loves you.
An impersonal god does not care about you as an individual. Praying won’t get you anything. He is indifferent to what happens to you.
Is that hard to understand?
He even basically says he isn’t religious and follows science. That alone should give away exactly what he is meaning by what he is saying.
All “gods” are personal gods because they are made up by humans in the first place so that they may relate to it… I really don’t understand your point when that is what ‘god’ is from the beginning. People pray to it don’t they. So if it wasn’t a personal god then why would they bother praying. It makes no sense at all.
What is not explainable at the time is automatically god… Until 50-100 years later some other genius comes along an solves the problem. It always happens.
Now I need to explain the difference between god, religion, belief, and science? 
Yeah, you don’t understand my point.
You don’t understand because you think that there is only one god, one way of relating to god, one way to worship god, one way to think about god.
When you read ‘god’, for you it automatically means Jehovah and protestant Christians.
Even 6000 years ago, what you now call “God” was understood as “The force behind what is” or “the way it is”. And in the case of El, what you now call “Cause and Effect” or “Karma”.
Bullshit, most concepts of God back then were far more specific, as are most of them even now. Do people pray to the “force behind what is” or “the way it is” or do they pray to a personal deity who listens to their prayers and who they think will possibly answer them? Do they sing to “the way it is” or “The Force behind what is” every Sunday?
You’re just making everybody who believes in God and isn’t a deist look silly.
Why would atheists pretend to be honestly religious? What? And why would it be taught poorly?
Teaching children only nice stories from the book and completely forgetting to mention the horrible ones is good, objective teaching as opposed to poor?
No there are tons of gods… which hence it is a PERSONAL god(s) that anyone can relate to, anyone can pray to, anyone can worship, etc.
“Oh I don’t like your god… let’s create my own then.” Which is what you’re all doing, hence personal god of which Einstein did not believe in. He may have admired the universe and all of it’s mystery but he didn’t follow a deity. Reality is no deity either.
You know that realitiy is no deity? Wow! Are you God? Give us a sign as proof or evidence for us humans!
Actually use, we are “god” in it even did exist. We have the capacity to obtain new knowledge and create new things out of that knowledge. Two characteristics of a ‘deity’.
He meant to type if instead of in.
No. You are confusing a deity with a living being.
To “obtain new knowledge” means something like “to learn” and to “create new things out of that knowledge” means something like “to apply what has been learned” - thus: both mean two characteristics of living beings.
Living beings can learn and apply what they have learned. Have you forgotten that?
Human beings are also living beings, very specific living beings: animal-not-wannabes on the one side and god-wannabes on the other side. Humans are pretty much animals, but do not want to be animals, and they are not pretty much god(s), but want to be god(s). Humans are not able to be real animals and not able to be real god(s) - they are between the two, so a human being means a being between an animal and a god.
Knowledge is what makes a deity. With proper knowledge, something we do not know right now. We could be omnipotent. In the future we may be able to create new races, we may be able to birth without having to have sex and a lot more things on top of that. We already breed new domesticated animals. It is only a matter of time and knowledge.
Living beings can also be ‘gods’. Since that is what a “god” is. An aware all powerful controlling entity. Power is through knowledge, we are already aware and awareness can increase to great(er) heights, we are naturally controlling, for the good or bad it can be either.
Just because we’re animals does not mean we cannot be ‘gods’ as well. Not really anything wannabe about it honestly. We’re both. A “god” may create through expanded knowledge and awareness. We can do the same things, just on a smaller scale because we’re not at the required knowledge and awareness to do so.
So, did Einstein believe in God?
That’s nonsense, because that destroys the whole definition of “god(s)”.
B.t.w.: The Romans said to someone who was as presumptuous as you seem to be: “Remember that you are a mortal being”.
Gods are no mortal beings - this belongs to the definition of “god(s)”.
You are young. So I guess that nobody has ever told you the definition of “god(s)”. It is a truism.
Where did Artimas say that Einstein didn’t believe in a god? I don’t know what you were referring to but what he did say was that "most scientists do not believe in a personal god - meaning the judaic/christian god.
I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. (Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946)
Just to cut to the chase here, was that what DeGrasse said or Einstein? My quotes from Einstein reveal that he did “see” a god, but just not a personal one. I don’t like the word belief too much.