In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[The Grand Nudger]

A realist or physicalist would counter that color is a property/properties of reflective bodies and their interaction with light that exists independently of any consciousness to perceive them.  If this is true, then color is in no meaningful way a phenomenon of consciousness, a construct, a side effect, or a feature of consciousness.  It is a feature of reality about which we possess representational content, but also, through our eyes, direct detection.  In essence, our eyes pick it up, but our brains are more focused on finding uses for that information than the detection and communication of information in the raw.  We construct utilitarian stories -about- color, but we don't construct color.  

And the physicalist would, in the main, be wrong.  Color does not properly exist independent of consciousness because color itself is qualia.  Light of specific wavelengths may or may not correlate with perception of color, it is still the perception upon which the identification of color is based.

Is it, or is it the difference between objects reflective properties and their interaction with light?  The objection above begs the question from the outset whereas the realist/physicalist contention at least has the support of evidentiary data. We've yet to find the entities of color in the brain. Hell, we can't even find qualia. It's important to note that the realist/physicalist position does not contend that the brain isn't doing anything, on top of or with the reality of color. Only that objects really do have the property which we call color. Is red red and are some objects red? Well..yeah.

All other concepts of color, such as that it is specific wavelengths of light, are derivative of this fact.  If we did not perceive certain wavelengths of light to correspond to the color red, we would not label that wavelength as red, or, at minimum, such a labeling would be an arbitrary assignment of a label to a phenomena.  It is because those wavelengths of light give rise to the qualia of redness that we describe those wavelengths of light as being red.

All consistent with the realist/physicalist position..that concepts of color are derivative of observable properties and simultaneously expressed as contents in representational systems...which do exist, nevertheless, independantly of those representational systems..just as temperature is a property of x even when there's no thermostat around to measure it...just as trees really do make a sound when they fall regardless of whether or not anyone hears it.

The eyes directly perceive. Yes the brain interprets...but these things can be simultaneously true and it's at least possible that the brain interprets what the eyes see...accurately.