Wizard of ID

I'm aware that to see my downloaded lots all lit up at night, I need to download the EP1-Update 1 followed by the SC4-Update. The trouble is that the links I've found for these don't work any more, and the search box doesn't return anything. Anyone know where these updates are located these days? I have a disappointed daughter to sort out.

I tend to play SimCity4 for a bit, then uninstall it, then re-install it a few months later, and so on. This means I have installed SimCity several times now, and this has never been a problem before. Whenever you start start a city, you are supposed to get HUGE demand for dirty industry. After a few years, this gives out and is replaced with demand for manufacturing. And this is what has happened every previous time I've installed SimCity4 But this time, demand for dirty industry is all but non-existant. The first couple of cities I created, there was some, but since then, there's been nothing at all. I get a demand that cannot be satisfied for agricultural, but demand for dirty industry starts out as negative as it can be, and stays that way. Manufacturing demand arrives as normal a few years later. This is a problem, because it means I get massive unemployment, particularly among R$, and huge traffic problems as they all commute to the neighbouring city -- although the neighbouring city can be guaranteed to have zero demand also! I could just try re-installing SimCity4, but I'm reluctant to lose the cities I've already created. If I were to save the city files elsewhere, re-install SimCity4 and then replace the city files, will my cities be corrupted?

I've had that problem. It's your specifications, and you can correct them from the Region view.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa Granted, there are "mindless" atheists (or agnostics) who simply regurgitate what they hear, but the larger majority actually have a basis for their disregard of the supernatural...Many atheists, like myself, are predisposed to scientific thought. Why? is the big question we ask all the time. Most atheists do not ask Why Not? because that is actually a tool of the theist (as in: Why not believe in God, just in case?).quote> I refer you to my previous posts on epistemology; specifically, my posts dated 7/11 and 7/12. You've missed a vital point that invalidates your entire statement. Humans are not rational creatures.quote> While we are far from perfect (unattainable, IMO), we are the most rational lifeforms on Earth.quote> So? Given how advanced we are, I should certainly hope we're more rational than dolphins or orang-utans. But that merely means we're less irrational than everything else. which seems to only apply if they disagree with youquote>In the first place, I haven't seen much to agree with, so that's nonsense. In the second place, why are you treating this as some kind of party political campaign? I'm not rooting for Christianity. I'm not even religious, as I've stated several times. I'm discussing approaches to religion in general. As I wrote to Sam earlier today, if you read my posts rather more carefully, you'll realise they're as applicable to Christians as to atheists. Where on earth did you get the idea that I'm campaigning for Christianity? Because I'm not jumping up and down, insisting that atheism is the only way to go? Anyone who isn't for you must be against you; is that it? How childish.

Originally posted by: sam I think you are being very unfair in your judgement of others. Many of the comments you make about atheists are themselves very stereotypical,quote> I totally disagree. Nothing I've said here isn't basic psychology. This is how humans behave. I do it. You do it. Duke87 does it. The whole world does it. Humans are not rational creatures. The primary instinct of adults (children are different) is not to seek understanding, but to prove themselves right in their current beliefs and conceptions. Trust me. I'm a teacher. One thing I do know about is attitudes to learning and information. For the record, if you read my posts more carefully, you'll notice that my recent comments apply to Christians as much as to any other.

Originally posted by: Duke87We both have that tendency to be contrary just for the sake of being contrary.quote>Oh, how right you are!

Originally posted by: Duke87 It's just a matter of not jumping to conclusions. Something with no apparent logic occurs, and I just say that there is a logical explanation but I don't know what it is (often the explanation is no more than it being simply random chance). Assuming that god did it is, after all, illogical. So is seriously considering the possibility, since it's at the bottom of the list of rational explanations (Occam's Razor...).quote> What you call "not jumping to conclusions" is, again, a question of epistemology. You define, prior to the enquiry, what genre of explanation you are prepared to consider. You've predetermined that God falls into the same category as (I assume) UFO's, witchcraft and psychic engineering; one named "Irrational," and you rule it out of your list of permissable conclusions. We all do it. I rule out UFO's, witchcraft and psychic engineering too, but there's nothing logical or rational about it -- that's simply my prejudice. But suppose -- hypothetically -- there were a god who, for whatever reason, decided to, say, turn a poker hand in your favour. Nothing remarkable or dramatic, but silently, invisibly, his almighty hand causes the best cards to fall before you. How would you know? there is nevertheless a reason that you adopt one initial standpoint over the other.quote>Well, no, not as a general rule. You're falling into the old fallacy that humans are inherently logical beings, and they're really not. Until about age 14, most children are easily influnced. After age 14, the mould is pretty much set, and the values the child holds will be the ones that guide him throughout his life. Barring any traumatic, life-changing experiences, if the child's parents, peers and teachers have convinced him of God's existence, the child is likely to adopt a religious approach to life; otherwise, he's likely to be non-religious. As a general rule, an individual's epistemology is no more rational than that. I know very little about you, so I'm in no position to speculate about your background. You are clearly intelligent and well educated, so maybe things were somewhat different in your case; but realistically, how many atheists are pursuing some rational, logically deductive process, as opposed to just carrying on the way they always have? Far from "breaking the cycle", they're perpetuating their cycle as much as any Christian does his, and in precisely the same way. We've seen just on this forum that a substantial proportion of people operate on the basis of stereotype and simplification, with little genuine understanding, or desire to acquire any. Far from "demanding a greater reason why," they look for reasons why not. Again, we all do it. I believe the technical term used by psychologists is "seeking validation." Atheists do not have a monopoly on deductive reasoning. The difference between your conclusions and mine is probably nothing more than childhood influences that long pre-date any rational thoughts about religion. As lemmings go, we'd all run contentedly over a cliff, led by the right kind of lemming.

Originally posted by: Duke87 When a mother embraces her child, one can only attribute that to love and caring. But what case of something being attributed to god is there where you simply cannot deny that it was god and adopt an alternate explanation? quote> It's an excellent point. In the first place, teenagers are notorious for finding alternative explanations for their parents' demonstrations of love. In the second place, we've all had experiences that have no logical explanation. You dismiss yours as nothing more than a curious oddity because you start from a point that immediately and arbitrarily eliminates all potential explanations of divine origin, despite a clear lack of any other. By the same token, a lot of Christians are, perhaps, too willing to attribute divine explanations to demonstrably earthly phenomena. I wonder if anything brings Christianity into greater disrepute. It's a matter of epistemology. With parental love as with God's existence, it's the initial standpoint you choose to adopt that determines the conclusion. In other words, divine intervention occurs, or a bratty teenager is loved by his parents, to the extent that one is willing to accept that as an explanation. It's not a case of people saying, "X is true and Y is false, therefore I don't believe God exists;" rather, "I don't believe God exists, therefore I presume X to be true and Y false."

Originally posted by: sam"Personal emperical" tends to be a contradiction in terms.quote>quote>Did I use the word inappropriately? I meant "empirical" as in "gained by means of observation or experiment". My vocabularial weaknesses are beside the point though. Would you care to respond to the crux of my comment? And there certainly have been scientific studies into feelings of love. One I read about a while ago (probably in one of the popular mags like New Scientist or something), was about a study to find out if people really were as much in love as they day they were first fell in love. It turns out some really were, and some weren't. I hope for those participant's sake it was a double blind study.quote> I wouldn't rely on that study, if I were you. As subjective as love is, I have a hard time imagining how you could possibly study it with any degree of scientific objectivity. Where you get your science from I really don't know.quote>I'm not a scientist, and I don't claim to be an expert. I think you've taken my statement out of context. I was asking brando a question, and including a couple of examples by way of illustration. I wasn't trying to prove a point one way or another. You seem to be very angry towards both atheists and science.quote>I haven't the faintest idea where you got that from. This is just a discussion; an intellectual exercise in exchanging opinions. Because I question the prevailing authodoxy, I must some sort of personal issue with it? Questioning is what scientifically minded people do, surely?

Originally posted by: Duke87 Well, there's a difference between "we have proof that it exists, but we don't understand how it works" and "we don't have proof that it exists". The former is the situation with love, why cancer develops, etc. The latter is the situation with god(s). quote> But there are millions of Christians all over the world who swear to personal, empirical experiences which, while not subject to scientific analysis (like love), collectively amount to a strong body of evidence. We can say that love exists because, although love defies measurement and therefore science cannot study it, there are so many people out there who swear that they've experienced love. Unless we're going to apply a dual standard, I think we'd have to accept that God exists also. As for how evolution is incompatible with the literal bible... creation in six days. quote> Right. I knew somebody was going to come up with that one. And I'm glad, because it allows me to introduce my own personal theory. One that I hatched years ago, when I was an undergrad participating in a course that had nothing whatever to do with my major, entitled "The Bible as a Work of Literature and The Chronicals of Narnia as Works of Religion." (I enrolled simply because I was intrigued by the name!) First of all, what is a day? The time period for the Earth to complete a revolution upon its axis? According to Genesis, God creates: the universe on the first day; the sun, moon and stars on the second, and the Earth on the third. Plants, animals and humans appear on the fourth, fifth and sixth days. But here's a question: how do you create something according to a time standard that doesn't exist? If the Bible's "day" refers to the period that it takes the Earth to complete a revolution upon its axis, how did God create the universe and the stars when the was no Earth to turn upon any axis? This doesn't imply a limit to God's power. It's just illogical. So clearly, when the Bible says "day", it doesn't mean a 24 hour period. But what other interpretations can be applied to "day"? Obviously, the Old Testament was originally written in Aramaic, and you'd have to read the original and consider possible Aramaic interpretations, something I'm not qualified to do. But here's a speculative suggestion, based on English: My daughter is fond of taking about what she calls "the olden days". She also has a book entitled, "The Day of the Dinosaurs". And regrettably, I've reached an age where I catch myself saying things like, "Back in my day". So from the point of view that "day" can mean "era", we could say that: God created the universe in the first era, the stars in the second era, and the Earth in the third era. Plants appeared in the fourth era, animals in the fifth era, and humans in the sixth. There's not an evolutionist in the world would disagree with that. Interesting, hmm?

Originally posted by: mayor_brando My religion is science. If something doesn't have proof (scientific evidence), then I don't think of it as being truequote> Although science can only study that which can be measured. Something that cannot be measured cannot be explained by science, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Science will never study love, for example. Just as a matter of interest, brando, what do you think of scientific theories that are clearly imperfect? Quantum physics and the Theory of Relativity, for example, popular and useful though they both are, are contradictory in some respects, and one of them has to be wrong. This is something freely acknowledged even by the scientists who apply both theories regularly to their studies. Or, for a more down-to-earth example, although we have a pretty good idea of how gravity affects us, and can even measure its effects, nobody really knows what it is. Medical science really has no idea why cancers develop -- invaluable though the Microbial Theory is in explaining disease, it is of no help in explaining cancer. Given your thoughts on scientific evidence being the proof of the truth of things, how do you feel about such examples where even scientists admit they still have much to learn? It's just a courteous curiosity of mine.

Originally posted by: Duke87 Originally posted by: pingangster Just like belief that God created humans and the theory of evolution are compatible.quote> Only if you don't insist on taking the bible literally. quote> You reckon? For the sake of argument, I've just read the opening chapter of the Bible, that deals with the Creation of the world. All I can find on the Creation is: And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. quote> How is that incompatible with Evolution? The Bible isn't attempting to state how God created life, simply that he did. Bear in mind, the Bible's primary purpose is religious. It isn't -- it never was never intended as -- a scientific textbook. People who insist upon treating it as such (whatever side of the debate they come from) are guilty of misrepresentation. I do think, however, that critiques of Christianity based on Biblical/scientific dissonance are missing the point. I've met plenty of Christians who believe in Evolution. Christianity is not about putting forward an alternative explanation of the earth's origins -- actually, I think most of the Christians I've met really didn't care a whole lot one way or another about the origins of the universe, and considered it all rather irrelevant. Christianity is far more to do with developing an harmonious lifestyle, with an emphasis on caring for the socially disadvantaged. The biggest debates of Christianity are about what exactly that means, and how best to achieve it. Since the exact method by which God created the Earth, or whether Noah actually existed, or whether Moses genuinely led an Israelite exodus from Egypt -- none of that helps them achieve that harmonious lifestyle, so it rarely amounts to more than a passing interest. And yes, I know you can always find some loony fundamentalist who makes a huge song and dance about the origins of the earth's existence, or for whom the literal existence of Noah's ark is the alpha and omega of the Bible. Noisy though they may be, I wouldn't have said they're representative of Christianity. I can just as easily find you some atheistic fundamentalist, for whom Noah's literal existence is the be-all and end-all of Christainity -- but I would say he doesn't know what he's talking about either.

Originally posted by: Duke87 puerilequote> Ooh. I like that word. It's always fun when people come up with fancy vocabulary. quote> Why, thank you, kind sir! I was born into a very poor family. My mother couldn't afford food, so she fed me on old dictionaries instead. what I find interesting is the assumption that apparently forms the foundation of some criticisms that, in 2000 years of Christian theology, including some of the greatest philosophers the world has known, no Christian has ever thought of this one before.quote> Just because something has thought of before does not mean any given individual will be aware of it. Or that they won't be in denial of it or rationalizing it away. quote> If the question were about some wildly obscure and deep doctrine -- say, transubstantiation or the precise moment of communion, or whatever -- sure. The posts I was referring to at the time I wrote that comment went along the lines of "The god of the Bible has killed lots of people and therefore can't be a loving god." While a perfectly reasonable point in itself, the implication of these posts (they're back on the previous page, if you want to read them) was that this is a flaw that must never have occurred to any Christian before. Which is a bit silly. I don't know how Christians answer that (I'm not entirely sure how I ended up fighting the Christians' corner, but it's not because I'm any great man of faith!), but I'm sure they have one; and that it's good enough to satisfy a couple of billion Christians the world over and for two thousand years. The premise of the posts in question (that if the critic can't think of an explanation, none must exist, and therefore, anybody who disagrees with the critic must be irredeemably naive and brainless for not seeing it the critic's way) is, of course, a fairly ignorant one. To maintain such a perspective, one must be either poorly educated or arrogant, which says rather more about the critic than it does about the subject. Like I said above, most of those critics would feel hopelessly unqualified to debate the merits of Jane Austen unless they'd actually read at least some of her writing. I just wish they'd apply the same sense of humility to the Bible, and I really don't understand why they don't. Admittedly, Christianity itself in past ages has not always been especially enlightened with regard to the competition, but that hardly gives its critics of today an excuse! Some people are uninformed. Others are quite informed and see great flaws with "how Christians explain it". One does not have to agree with someone to nderstand what they think.... the understanding is just likely to be different. The rub is that "understanding" the same way involves having faith. Which means surrendering to a god whose existence I have never seen any reason to accept. Sorry, but I can't do that. Ultimately, there's just an irreconciliable difference in perspective.quote> As you so rightly put it, that's the rub. I'm not convinced it's entirely irreconcilable -- after all, a political conservative can utterly reject left-wing politics and ideologies, but that doesn't prevent him understanding how those ideologies inspire and motivate a liberal. But that does, of course, presuppose not only a fairly strong analytical ability, but more fundamentally, a desire to learn about the alternative points of view. Since a characteristic of adults is that they aren't generally interested in learning unless they clearly understand how that learning will benefit them, that's unlikely to happen if they're relatively content with whatever ideology they currently subscribe to.

What I get -- loud and clear -- is the overt hostility of your attitude. Why the moderators haven't PM'd you about ruining what up till now has been an admirably courteous topic (as they did me for a post that was less pugnatious than yours have been) is anybody's guess. But if you want a fight, you're going to have to find someone else, because I'm not interested. On the other hand, if you'd like to moderate your tone considerably, to the point that I'm satisfied of your willingness to engage in a mutually respectful and gracious discussion, I'll think about joining you. Under the present conditions, however, I am not remotely interested in "moving the conversation forward."

Originally posted by: Barbarossa Do you mean that for anyone to have an opinion on a religion they need to be a scholar or a member of said religion?quote> No. That's the second time in as many posts that you've miscontrued my statements. I resent it, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped.