1. Introduction
There are few words that travel so confidently through history despite having no solid ground beneath them. Blasphemy is one of them. It sits at the centre of religious emotion, moral panic and political control. To believers it feels like a genuine offence. It feels like something dangerous has been violated. It feels like a moral line has been crossed. Yet the moment we look at blasphemy from the outside, the entire structure collapses.
The truth is disarmingly simple. Blasphemy is not a real universal concept. It has no objective existence in the world. It is not like theft or violence or deception, which harm actual people and can be recognised across cultures. Blasphemy is a private religious rule, created inside the boundaries of a belief system and meaningful only to those who subscribe to that belief system. Once you step beyond those boundaries, the concept dissolves.
This article explores why blasphemy cannot operate across societies, across religions, or across the believer and nonbeliever divide. It interrogates the psychology that sustains the idea, the social machinery that enforces it and the political uses that depend on it. It asks a simple question that has a surprisingly large impact. If blasphemy is real, who decides what counts as sacred? And more importantly, why should anyone outside a religion be governed by its emotional rules?
The answer is clear. Blasphemy belongs to the believer, not the world. It binds only those who accept its premise. For everyone else, it is noise dressed as law.
For a deeper look at why ideas must remain open to challenge, see our article https://atheistwave.com/criticism-isnt-hatred-debate-islam/
2. What Blasphemy Actually Means
2.1 Dictionary Definition
Every serious argument begins with clarity. Blasphemy, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is:
“The act or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things.”
Merriam-Webster provides a similar definition:
“Profane talk about a deity or religious principles.”
These definitions get to the core of the problem. To commit blasphemy you must first accept that a deity exists and that certain objects or ideas possess a sacred status. The offence is only meaningful inside a specific worldview. Once the worldview is no longer shared, the offence cannot exist.
The word “sacrilegious” itself presupposes holiness. The word “profane” presupposes the existence of the sacred. These are not universal categories. They are internal classifications used by believers to rank ideas according to a divine framework. A person who rejects that framework cannot engage in sacrilege because the category itself is rejected.
This is the foundation. Without belief, blasphemy has no meaning. It becomes as weightless as any other rule invented inside a religion. It cannot bind outsiders any more than a chess rule can bind someone who is not playing the game.
2.2 Voices That Challenge the Idea
Many thinkers across centuries have challenged the coherence of blasphemy, and not all of them were atheists.
Thomas Paine noted that the idea insults human intelligence because it presupposes a being whose existence has never been demonstrated.
George Bernard Shaw warned against silencing truth for fear of offence.
Lord Denning, one of the most influential judges in British legal history, stated that laws that protect religion from criticism have no place in a free society.
Salman Rushdie observed that the right to offend sits at the heart of free speech because without it no important truth can survive pressure.
John Milton, a devout Christian, argued that a sovereign God would not require the help of magistrates to protect His honour.
Martin Luther pointed out that faith threatened by questions is not faith but fear.
Bishop John Shelby Spong, also a Christian, remarked that if a god is offended by words then perhaps the god in question is far too small.
Kenan Malik highlighted that there is no right not to be offended, only the right not to be harmed.
Justice James Fitzjames Stephen noted that blasphemy is a victimless crime because it harms no actual human being.
From believers to sceptics, from artists to legal minds, these voices converge on the same conclusion. Blasphemy is a belief-dependent notion that cannot survive any attempt to universalise it.
If you want to explore how religious claims became shielded from scrutiny in the first place, read https://atheistwave.com/science-vs-religion/
3. Why Blasphemy Cannot Apply to Atheists
Atheists reject the premise that gods exist. They reject the idea that objects, books, symbols or sounds can possess sacred qualities. For an atheist, the concept of blasphemy is not merely unimportant. It is unintelligible.
A person cannot violate a rule created inside a belief system they do not accept. If a club invents a rule that members must not wear red socks on Thursdays, that rule binds members, not the entire world. Someone who never joined the club cannot break the rule because the rule has no jurisdiction over them. Blasphemy follows the same logic.
When an atheist criticises a religious idea, they are not violating a sacred boundary. They are expressing disagreement with a claim presented as fact. To the believer, this disagreement may feel personal because the belief is deeply tied to identity and emotion. But feelings do not produce universal obligations. Hurt pride is not evidence of a real crime.
Religious offence is not a public standard. It is a private reaction.
This ties directly into the wider question of moral authority, which we examine in https://atheistwave.com/morality-without-god-3/
4. The Inconsistency Within Religion
If blasphemy were real in any objective sense, religious groups would agree on what counts as sacred. They do not. They never have. They never will.
Christianity regards it as blasphemy to deny the divinity of Jesus. Islam regards it as blasphemy to affirm the divinity of Jesus. Judaism regards the worship of Jesus or Muhammad as blasphemy. Hinduism operates on a completely different foundation and views both monotheistic traditions as deeply incomplete.
Even inside single religions, competing sects accuse each other of blasphemy. Sunnis accuse Shias. Shias accuse Sunnis. Catholics accuse Protestants. Protestants accuse Catholics. Every tradition has its own sacred boundaries, its own forbidden ideas and its own internal heresies.
These contradictions expose the core weakness. There is no shared standard. There is no agreed definition. There is no objective reference point. Blasphemy is entirely dependent on the premises of each religion. Once those premises differ, the supposed offence becomes a floating concept with no anchor in reality.
5. Blasphemy Between Different Religions: The Impossible Game
Blasphemy becomes even more incoherent when we introduce multiple religions.
5.1 Mutual Accusation
Every religion regards other religions as blasphemous. This is not a fringe observation. It is built into the theology.
Christians accuse Muslims of denying the Trinity. Muslims accuse Christians of committing shirk by associating partners with God. Jews accuse both for worshipping figures they do not recognise as divine. Hindus reject the exclusive claims of the Abrahamic traditions. Sikhs reject the polytheism of Hinduism and the prophetic finality claimed by Islam. Buddhists reject the entire metaphysical structure underlying all of these.
The result is an infinite loop of accusations. Every group claims sacred status for its own ideas and insists that contradicting them is offensive. Every group, therefore, regards every other group as guilty.
If blasphemy were an objective offence, it would have a consistent outcome. Instead it is an impossible game where every side wins according to its own rules and every side loses according to everyone else’s rules.
5.2 No Neutral Referee
There is no common authority that can decide whose blasphemy rules are correct. No religion accepts another religion’s scriptures as binding. No religion submits to another’s definition of the sacred. There is no shared court, no shared doctrine and no shared evidence that can settle the dispute.
This leaves only one mechanism. The winner is the group that already agrees with itself. Blasphemy becomes a circular concept. The only people who accept the accusation are the accusers.
5.3 Unworkable in Society
If a modern state attempted to enforce all competing blasphemy rules simultaneously, the result would be absurd.
Christians would be punished for rejecting the Quran. Muslims would be punished for accepting it and rejecting the New Testament. Jews would be punished for rejecting the prophets recognised by both. Hindus would be punished for polytheism. Buddhists would be punished for rejecting gods entirely. Sikhs would be punished for rejecting the exclusivity of others. Atheists would be punished for rejecting all of them.
In other words, everyone would be guilty according to someone else’s sacred rules. A functioning society cannot operate on contradictory metaphysical claims. This is why secular law removes blasphemy from public policy. No government can enforce competing sacred boundaries without collapsing into sectarian chaos.
5.4 The Exposed Flaw
The question “who wins the blasphemy battle between religions” reveals the fatal flaw. Blasphemy is not a universal category. It only holds inside a single religion and falls apart the moment more than one belief system is present.
6. The Social Function of Blasphemy Accusations
Although blasphemy has no objective reality, it has a clear social function. It polices speech, maintains boundaries and reinforces group identity.
Religions often use blasphemy to:
• draw a sharp line between believers and outsiders
• protect fragile ideas from scrutiny
• create loyalty through shared fear
• punish dissenters and reformers
• silence questions that could weaken authority
The accusation of blasphemy increases precisely when the persuasive power of a belief decreases. When ideas can no longer stand tall on their own merits, fear becomes the last defence. Instead of argument, there is outrage. Instead of evidence, there is offence.
Political movements and governments quickly recognise the utility of this tool. Blasphemy accusations have been used for centuries to suppress political opposition, silence journalists, punish minorities, intimidate reformers and justify violence. Once a society accepts that questioning a belief is a crime, the gate is open for authoritarian control.
Blasphemy becomes a weapon. Not a protection. A tool of power. Not a doctrine of compassion.
For readers interested in the psychological side of belief, our article https://atheistwave.com/meaning-without-a-master-2/ explores how identity shapes what people feel is offensive or sacred.
7. Blasphemy and Moral Responsibility
Rejecting the idea of blasphemy is not the same as promoting hatred or discrimination. It is perfectly possible to respect people while refusing to respect ideas that cannot justify themselves.
Criticising a belief is not the same as attacking a person. Adults know this distinction and rely on it in all other domains. People criticise politics, economics, art, sport, science, government and culture without assuming that every critique is a personal insult. Only religion attempts to turn ideas into people and then demand emotional immunity.
A mature society cannot accept this confusion. If any idea is shielded from criticism because someone finds it sacred, then progress stops. Science collapses. Literature collapses. Philosophy collapses. History collapses. Human rights collapse. Everything strong depends on open discussion.
Freedom of conscience relies on the ability to examine ideas without penalty. The right to question is the right that guarantees every other right. Without it, belief becomes compulsion and faith becomes obedience.
This distinction is central to https://atheistwave.com/law-of-the-land-not-a-suggestion/, which explains why moral responsibility survives without divine protection.
8. Why Blasphemy Laws Fail Modern Society
Blasphemy laws fail for a simple reason. They attempt to enforce subjective emotional reactions as if they were objective public harms. They elevate feelings to the level of rights and punish people for disagreeing with metaphysical claims that cannot be demonstrated.
Several consequences follow.
8.1 They Cannot Be Fairly Applied
Blasphemy depends entirely on belief. A Christian who rejects the Quran does not think they are committing an offence. A Muslim who rejects Christian doctrine feels the same. A Hindu who rejects both feels entirely innocent. An atheist who rejects everything sees no issue at all.
No law can fairly punish people for failing to act according to beliefs they do not hold.
8.2 They Create a Hierarchy of Feelings
Blasphemy laws place religious emotions above all other human emotions. They allow believers to elevate their sense of offence to the level of law while denying others the same privilege. This is not equality. It is not justice. It is preference disguised as morality.
8.3 They Are Used Against Minorities
In countries where blasphemy laws are still enforced, the usual targets are not powerful religious authorities. They are journalists, women, reformers, children, nonbelievers, political opponents and members of minority faiths. The laws become tools for the strong to suppress the weak.
8.4 They Cannot Coexist With Diversity
A society that contains Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, atheists and many others cannot enforce the blasphemy rules of any single group without violating the freedom of every other group. The only workable solution is secular law, where beliefs are private and rights are public.
9. The Logical Core: A Belief Cannot Bind Those Who Do Not Hold It
Everything comes down to one principle. A belief can only bind those who believe it. Religious rules are not universal claims about reality. They are internal commitments that apply only to followers.
A person cannot violate a doctrine they do not accept. They cannot insult a deity they do not believe exists. They cannot profane a sacred object they do not consider sacred. They can disagree. They can critique. They can question. But they cannot meaningfully commit blasphemy.
When someone says “you have blasphemed”, they are not describing a real event in the world. They are describing an emotional reaction produced by their own beliefs. They are reporting their own internal boundaries. They are not reporting a universal fact.
The accusation tells us nothing about the speaker’s target. It tells us everything about the speaker’s faith.
10. Conclusion
Blasphemy feels powerful only to those who believe in it. Outside that circle it dissolves instantly. It is a concept that depends completely on shared belief and collapses the moment different religions meet or a nonbeliever enters the conversation.
It cannot apply universally because there is no universal agreement on what is sacred. It cannot apply fairly because it punishes people for failing to share religious emotions. It cannot function in a pluralistic society because every religion defines blasphemy differently. It cannot protect truth because truth does not depend on offence. It cannot protect morality because morality depends on real harm, not wounded pride.
Blasphemy survives only because some beliefs cannot defend themselves. It rises when ideas are weak, not when they are strong. It appears most often where debate is most needed. The accusation reveals the vulnerability of the accuser. Ideas that can stand scrutiny do not need protection from words.
A free society cannot allow private religious feelings to become public law. Adults must be permitted to examine ideas, including sacred ones. No belief deserves a shield from critical thought. No ideology deserves emotional immunity. No text is above question.
Blasphemy is not real. It is a superstition about speech. It is a rule that exists only inside a religion and nowhere else. Once we step outside that circle, we see it clearly for what it is: a tool of control, a symptom of fear and a relic of a time when ideas ruled by decree rather than by reason.
A society that protects freedom of conscience must reject the idea of blasphemy entirely. Not because it wishes to offend, but because it values truth. Not because it seeks conflict, but because it seeks clarity. Not because it despises believers, but because it respects the right of every person to think for themselves.
The world does not need blasphemy laws. It needs courage, honesty, curiosity and the freedom to question whatever claims authority over the human mind.
If you want to continue exploring how society benefits from secular principles, our article https://atheistwave.com/morality-without-god-3/ is a good next step.