What's this got to do with anything? Well, while I was mildly embarrassed to be corrected in public, I was glad that I knew more than before. I would be far more embarrassed - humiliated even - had my companion decided to be "tolerant" of my belief, and I had continued in my error. With the possible exception of pride I cannot see why anyone would prefer to be wrong but tolerated, than to be correct.
So when someone expresses a belief I know to be false, I will usually correct it. If they express a questionable belief, I will question it. If they express a ridiculous belief, I may even ridicule it. None of this is intolerance. If they choose to hold an untenable belief, I will still tolerate them. I will not necessarily respect them, or keep silent about their error - but why should I? And why should there be any difference between correcting someone about the origin of a word, and ;correcting someone ;about the origin of the universe?
I have been mulling this over. Something about it seemed to strike discordantly. I finally applied logic and voila!
You have confused statement of belief with statement of fact. Your statement regarding the etymology of a word is akin to my frequently erroneous posts for which Narkissos and Leolaia patiently smack me on the head. If I understand how it works correctly, in order for a belief to be untenable it must first be framed as a falsifiable construct.
In the case of whether God exists to my knowledge there is no such construct, just as there would be none for whether pink unicorns exist. Defense for personal belief in God is easily achieved by the invocation of the personal experience clause—it is rare that someone can successfully defeat a belief arrived at through personal experience. Defense for advocacy of belief in God is more difficult to achieve. The former is tenable, the latter less so.
In the matter of a word origin, you stated an incorrect viewpoint as fact. You stated it as though others could confidently depend on the factuality of your statement. You were presented with evidence you perceived as compelling enough to change your viewpoint of the facts.
I would be delighted at any effort you might similarly muster against my personal belief in God.
With the possible exception of pride I cannot see why anyone would prefer to be wrong but tolerated, than to be correct.
How about comfort? Have you considered that as a possible reason? Nostalgic desire to stay connected to something, a desire to not have been entirely wrong about everything could be considered pride, if you're a judgmental ass. But you don't strike me as one, so that could be another reason aside from pride. I don't think you really strained too much to come up with other reasons.
Either way, ridiculing a belief is not the same as ridiculing a person for having the belief. All too often that line is crossed. There are thousands of reasons a person may have acquired a specific belief and very few of those reasons (comparatively) are actually deserving of ridicule. Even more rarely is the person who has the belief deserving of ridicule.
Ridicule is the stuff of scorn. Scorn presumes that you are better than others, that you are superior. With the possible exception of pride I cannot see why anyone would prefer to be scornful and correct. I have really tried hard to come up with alternate reasons and I cannot. If there are others, please share them with me.