You are missing the point completely. Even if saying racist slurs or denying the Holocaust were crimes in my country (UK), they would have very specific criteria for who the victims are.
Denying the Holocaust is a victimless crime, since it has no specific victim (i.e. nobody other than the state can press charges). Hitting someone is a crime that has a very specific victim: the person being hit. Both are crimes, but the distinction between victim and victimless is important.
If blasphemy was still banned in the UK, it would be a crime (I'm not arguing it wouldn't be), but the only possible victim would be God, since blasphemous statements are aimed at God. The point of the joke is that atheists don't believe in God, making blasphemy a victimless crime.
One can be a victim in the sense that someone can be hurt, or affected by an action, or one can be a victim in the criminal sense of the word, which is what we are talking about here (hence "victimless crime").
Denying the Holocaust is a victimless crime, since it has no specific victim (i.e. nobody other than the state can press charges). Hitting someone is a crime that has a very specific victim: the person being hit. Both are crimes, but the distinction between victim and victimless is important.
If blasphemy was still banned in the UK, it would be a crime (I'm not arguing it wouldn't be), but the only possible victim would be God, since blasphemous statements are aimed at God. The point of the joke is that atheists don't believe in God, making blasphemy a victimless crime.
One can be a victim in the sense that someone can be hurt, or affected by an action, or one can be a victim in the criminal sense of the word, which is what we are talking about here (hence "victimless crime").
