God as "all powerful" or "not so much, not all good" is a setup to fail type of argument. In other words, if there is a God, then the implication is that He should protect us all from the perils of 'nature.' But this really begs another way of understanding what God may be about, very different from traditional forms of belief. Cultural filters are the drivers of religious beliefs explains why they're so diverse. As in eastern thought, 'karma' is the belief based on cause and effect, where each individual is 'responsible' for the conditions of their lives, both past and present. Meaning that, as in the concept of the 'Law of Attraction', you draw to yourself what you experience whether you're conscious or not. Certain teachings have the intention of helping you to 'wake up' to what is described as your "True Self" and, as awareness expands, you grow in mental/emotional/spiritual ways that 'enlighten' your path in life. A means of discovering what you might describe as 'true happiness.' This implies that there is an inter-relational connection between all of us (aspect of quantum field theory) as well as between each life-time experience.
Tyson addressed quite well where religions have their place in the creation of a nation. True, that it's very unstable to build a government on a 'belief' system, better to settle on "objectively, verifiable truths around with which we can all agree"
Do I believe in door? I have no need for door beliefs. Doors exist. I walk in doors without believing anything about doors. "Believe in" is a non-sequitur. We can walk in doors but no single person can walk in a gawd. The gott gawd gods sounds are not words instead the sounds are gibberish. Referents without object. Thus pretending the question is rational deserving a no or yes answer is instead a false leading question. Do you still beat your wife ? A no answer implies you once beat her. And a yes answer is more incriminating. Neither is true when asked of the innocent Atheist.
I wish the politics of the US were not so tied to being christian despite everything he pointed out. If you are not willing to stand before a camera and lie and say you are christian you are not likely to be elected at the senate / presidential level. Neil is right, but how do we convince the religously motivated voters and candidates to want a country like that too? If we did actually run our country that way, imagine where would we really be at this point on climate change, rights for women , rights for LGBT (etc..), sexuality in general, art, learning? We sure could use Neil like candidates, not that he wants to try =)