Many parts of religious believe is not proven wrong, but unfalsifiability. Wikipedia (and Wordnet) define delusion as

There is no superior evidence to the contrary, just a lack of evidence.

No, it is just crap. There are delusional believers sure, but many believers are not delusional.

Google is already censoring the auto-complete, just for other reasons:

It will not suggest "adobe photoshop torrent" or "adobe photoshop crack", even though that these searches and similar searches are extremly popular. And it will not autocomplete "Rocco" to "Rocco Siffredi". So google is censoring auto-complete against piracy and against pornography, why exactly shouldn't it do the same thing to protect people against libel?

What about the cost of data loss because users forget their password?

No matter how much I would train, I and 99.9% of the population wouldn't stand a chance at Olympia for genetic reasons. No matter if your genetics give you less than perfect endurance, reaction times or muscular strength, you will not get a medal at Olympia. People with genetics better suited for the discipline will get the medals. Nobody is going to hold a separate contest for people with less than optimal muscular strength or stuff like that. Even through white runners did not stand a chance against black runners, there is not going to be a olympia medal for the fastest non-black runner. Why should we make a difference for women? If they don't stand a chance against men, why should they get a medal?

You are forgetting something really important here:

In a free market with a lot of competion companies will only make small to no profits. For that reason the most efficient way of making profit is stop competion. The goverment also needs to take care that there is a working free market with a lot of competion.

Not really. A marriage is always a union between one male and one female. A polygamist doesn't marry multiple females at once, he has multiple marriages active at the same time. That is why there is no ceremony for 1 male and N females but instead N ceremonies with 1 male and 1 female. That is also the reason why it is often possible to get a divorced from just one female and divorce doesn't end the union with all the other females the polygamist has also married.

Yes. Marriage as a symbol of love is a rather new idea. Stuff like "arranged marriages" make a lot of sense with your definition of marriage but little sense if you require that marriage had something to do with love.

TSMC, UMC and Samsung are some of the biggest players in the field. And almost all the DRAM is manufactured in South Korea.

But there are over 2 billion Christians, 100 Million people in the US is just 5% worldwide. Worldwide there are likely more christians believing Evolution is true than Atheists.

And if you look at the questions often used for "god inspired evolution" vs. "evolution" you will often see that they are phrased in a way where almost no theist could really reject them and choose the "evolution".
Even if someone is a deist who believes God created the universe and did not interact with it at all after that, then evolution must be considered as something that has only happend because God had choosen rules and starting conditions that allow evolution to work. So even a deist or pantheist can not really choose an answer like "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process"

Exactly a single gene is beneficial, two of them are not. But you can not have people with one of the them, without also having people with two sickle-cell genes.

Sure, but they sure get a smaller number of kids than heterosexuals without modern contraception. And remember that not too long ago people were often having 8 children or so but the population still stayed almost stable. So for survival people need to have a lot of kids because only a small subset of them was actually living long enough to get own children.

No, but for resistant to malaria one copy of the gene is enough, which will not cause full SCD. However single gene carriers mating with other single gene carries results in a 25% chance of double SCD gene offspring, 50% with a single gene and malaria resistance and 25% chance of offspring without a single SCD gene. So SCD gene will be beneficial to a group if malaria is large enough threat for survival, so that limited resistance for 75% offsets the dead's caused by full SCD for 25% of the children.

Maybe I was not clear enough about this. Yes, having one copy of the gene is very helpful, but will not cause full SCD. Two copies of the gene will cause SCD. You can not have people with one copy of the gene without having a smaller number of people that have two copies of the gene.

Don't forget that during most of human history human survival was not as easy as it is now. In the past people often had a huge number of children, but still the population often did not increase because so many children died before they reached adulthood and own children. So it is not unlikely that even a birthrate that is just 20% lower would have been a real survival risk.

No. That is a too simple view of evolution and genetics. Something being common does not necessary show that something is beneficial for survival. Look at e.g.: Sickle-cell disease(SCD). Very common in Sub-Saharan Africa, but not helpful for survival. SCD happens in individuals with two copies of the gene, while one copy of the gene makes individuals more resistant to malaria. Genes can often have multiple effects, some beneficial, some not.
So it is possible that homosexuality is beneficial for survival but it could also be just a side effect of something that is actually beneficial.

This is also problematic reasoning. There are also significant numbers of species(ants,...) where most individuals are infertile. But that sure does not mean that mass infertility would be beneficial for humans, too. Whether something is beneficial or not most often also depends on other traits and the environment of species.

This can be said for "religious" wars. Do you know any war where the rulers reason for participation was really religion and not power gain? However claiming religious reasons has often helped getting support by the people. But this also worked for Stalin and Mao, see e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

Also I think the power gain theory is not strictly true. When Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 Stalin shut down the League of millitant godless, anti-religious periodicals and reopened churches to gain more support by the people. So for power gain the extremely antireligious activities were actually counterproductive and Stalin apparently knew this and continued until he felt he needed the support of religious people to not lose the war against Nazi-Germany.

For Hitler power gain as motivation behind his antichurch activities sounds more like likely. He used antireligious persecution against religious entities which he could not control, changed the protestant church to the "German Christians" and tried to appear as regular Christian in public while his private opinions were different.

"atheist mass murders" is misleading yes, on other hand "anticlerical mass murders" would be fine.

The question if he was religious is hard to answer because there are many very different definitions of "religious". Some people consider communism a political religion while others count only traditional religions. I think however most definitions will agree that Hitler was religious in a certain sense, calling him a roman catholic however is only formally true but very misleading imho.

Actually I think for Stalin and Mao this is not strictly true. They both killed a great number of priests and monks because they believed religion needs to be eradicated.