Are you religious?

[detmold_padbrat]

The present Pope is Satan himself...

you just said you didnt do stuff like that !!!!

pork pie teller !

[detmold_padbrat]

!1 oclock time for lunch.

[Higgs_bosun]

Your an ex soldier who is now a pacifist and a vegetarian ?! your missing out...... not just on the sublime delights of proper, hairy pork scrathings... but also with that background you would be entitled to hold all sorts of weird way out and off the wall beliefs... AND still get listeden to..

I don't smoke either Paddy....but I like my vice and booze just like any other sinner....

[Higgs_bosun]

I think that's too simplistic. There's evidence (I'm sure) that many religious people have done a lot of good around the world; feeding and caring for the poverty stricken, for example.

I think greed and delusion (even if that in part means religious fanaticism) is to blame.

Geordie,
Bits of religion may be ok and may actually do some good but that does not mean that only religions can do good.

Most of it is prothletising and spreading the poison. "Come to church, read the bible and you can have a bowl of rice"... Let these do gooders act only from their own hearts and see what happens.

[Excognito]

Colour as I have used the term refers to various frequencies in the EM spectrum.

And you're wrong to do so.

Different colours when described in that way do have differing properties.

The only property that is different from other photons is energy and that is frame-dependent. Go and look up Bose-Einstein statistics.

(They can even be detected if all we had was monochromatic vision and certainly existed before anything could consciously detect them.

Once again, this is not about the existence of photons or their detection. We have no reason, at the moment, to believe that mere detection of a photon by a mechanical/electronic device, not known to possess consciouness, invokes colour. We already detect 'coloured' photons, over a narrow EM frequency range using rods, and perceive the results in gray-scale.

You seem to be using the term colour with how we see/perceive it.

Which is exactly what I've said I've been doing all along.

IMO, colour is the parts of the em spectrum as labeled and is the "landscape", our perception of it is vision/sight and is a "map".

And, I repeat, you have got it completely the wrong way round. We called it colour long before we knew anything about photons. 'colour' is what 'we' see, not what produces it. Your interpretation of the word is at odds with both the physics and nature of colour. Here are a few examples from the web:
Color - The Physics Hypertextbook

Color is a function of the human visual system, and is not an intrinsic property. Objects don't "have" color, they give off light that "appears" to be a color. Spectral power distributions exist in the physical world, but color exists only in the mind of the beholder.

Color - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Color or colour (see spelling differences) is the visual perceptual property corresponding in humans to the categories called red, green, blue and others. Color derives from the spectrum of light (distribution of light energy versus wavelength) interacting in the eye with the spectral sensitivities of the light receptors

I've also directed you to the SciAm site that presented various colour illusions where the (normal) brain perceives colours that do not correspond to the corresponding photon energies that fall on the eye.
You seem utterly determined to ignore all the evidence that disagrees with your interpretation and that points to colour being a construct of the brain. I see little point in continuing this part of the discussion, as I am fairly confident that you're in it to win (or, rather, not to lose to a religious person) and not to be right.

[StickyEnd]

Sticky.. have you got that Hyperspace book by Mitchio Kaku yet ? I think you will like it. seeing the shadows of the 4th dimension and stuff quite strange..

This one?

Amazon.co.uk: A Customer's review of Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey through P...

If so, not yet but I might be putting it on my next amazon order. I take it that you have read it. What insights did you get from it?

The evil that rocks this world more than anything in my opinion is religion.

I think that's too simplistic. There's evidence (I'm sure) that many religious people have done a lot of good around the world; feeding and caring for the poverty stricken, for example.

I think greed and delusion (even if that in part means religious fanaticism) is to blame.

I am sure it is true that some good stuff gets done in the name of religion. But religion is the only way I can think of to get a decent person to commit a vile deed and think that he is doing good work.

[StickyEnd]

And you're wrong to do so...

And, I repeat, you have got it completely the wrong way round. We called it colour long before we knew anything about photons. 'colour' is what 'we' see, not what produces it. Your interpretation of the word is at odds with both the physics and nature of colour. Here are a few examples from the web:
Color - The Physics Hypertextbook
...

Yes you are right. I have been using the word colour incorectly.

[Cuddles]

But religion is the only way I can think of to get a decent person to commit a vile deed and think that he is doing good work.

Well anti-vivisectionists might see science as a way in which a decent person might be committing vile deeds? The bunnies at Laboratoire Garnier could possibly concur.

However unraguably it is just as true of politics as it is of religion...politics is a way of getting whole nations to do vile deeds in the belief that they are actually doing the right thing.

[Excognito]

But religion is the only way I can think of to get a decent person to commit a vile deed and think that he is doing good work.

Well anti-vivisectionists might see science as a way in which a decent person might be committing vile deeds? The bunnies at Laboratoire Garnier could possibly concur.

However unraguably it is just as true of politics as it is of religion...politics is a way of getting whole nations to do vile deeds in the belief that they are actually doing the right thing.

Milgram Experiment

My Lai
Hue
Katyn


+ Any number of vile and odious things committed by ordinary people when the situation seems to demand it.

Tibbets and his crew reduced a city of tens of thousands of people to rubble, obliterating many of them from the face of reality in a nuclear maelstrom and sentencing many more to die in agony as the effects of heat and radiation destroyed their bodies or to live blighted lives with those injuries. In the context of the overall war and the reliability of the political and military data available at the time, I think it was the right thing to do and Tibbets maintained that position throughout his life. But, no matter how you view it, it is a vile and terrible thing to do other human beings, especially women and children (*)

----------------------------
(*) sorry, I'm a throwback to the era of 'women and children first'. ... well, second -me first, naturally.

[Excognito]

Yes you are right. I have been using the word colour incorectly.

Thank you for proving me wrong about you.