no, but they should pay taxes.

No.

No.

Just no.

1. Atheists don't believe in "nothing" there are many things in this world to believe in.

2. You can't regulate a group of people that only have in common a "non belief" other than that they have nothing in common that you can assume. It's like gathering together people who don't like anime.

3. Gnosticism is about knowledge and theism is about belief. You can be both, if you don't know 100% God exists but you don't believe he exists you are an agnostic atheist. If you don't know 100% God exists but you believe he does then you are an agnostic theist. Gnostic atheists and gnostic theists are the truly foolish ones. 

So no, Carl Sagan was an agnostic but he was also an atheist. They're not mutually exclusive.

In many ways, yes they should.

First off, freedom of religion only works if it works both ways. When Christian groups are influencing politics with huge amounts of money, then they should have to pay taxes. See for instance the Mormon church's involvement in the campaign for proposition 8. To put it simply, Churches should not be free from government (no taxes) unless government is free from religion.

Another issue is that the classifications for a religion are incredibly vague. John Oliver did a great show about how easy it is to establish yourself as a tax free group which explains the problems with religion when it comes to taxation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

I have no problem with church and state being separate. However, when religious groups spend money pushing for religious instruction in schools (intelligent design), spend huge amounts of money to oppose gay marriage, spend money to oppose abortion, and support numerous other causes no support, then there is no reason they should still enjoy the benefits government subsidy.

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/22/you-give-religions-more-than-82-5-billion-a-year/)

Well, out of your list the only thing I agree wholeheartedly agree with is the need to tax organised religious groups. For example, if they're receiving large sums of money from donations to build their next big building of worship, that should be a taxable asset. A little more scrutiny from the government via taxation and defining what accounts a religion should also stop those that are looking to manipulate people's belief for "free" money in the form of donations.

The rest should really already be covered by current laws in any civilised society.

Government is an example of society arranging itself. Our base social structure (in-out groups) makes it functionally impossible for us to develop a stable large scale society, something that's necessary for a species as a whole to progress at a reasonable pace. Even in our natural group sizes we still opted to have leaders, law keeps, etc, because without at least some basic governing force, things tended to fall apart rather quickly.

I can understand someone arguing against 'big government' (i think that's the term used in the US), and do think the governments of many countries have overstepped their bounds, but having none at all would result in a pretty dramatic fall in the average person's quality of life, especially in a world that's currently entirely dependent on it. Without a central body organizing everything, we'd have no standardized currency, or easy access to water, food, education, power, etc.

not there should be no regulating of religion, BUT the government shouldnt care about religion while making laws.

your reigions isnt cool with animal rights? well thats your problem, you will go to jail if you let the animal just bleed to death.

Knew who the OP was from the title. I give this topic 3 Spurgeons out of 5 Ryans on the Spurgeonryan scale.

On Topic: No.

The more I read comments here, the more I'm convinced people here are part of a religion called Statism in which Western governments are benevolent and are a net positive in every endeavor they're involved in. It's getting scary and I hope I'm not the only one.

You're not.