>
I ridicule others based on their self-assuredness that their belief is correct (without proof)The point you're missing is that your basis for proof is flawed. Given that you substantively know so little (if anything) more in the relative sense, you are in no more of a position to require proof than are those with whom you disagree.
The other, and perhaps bigger, point is why the need for ridicule in the first place? Even if you possessed the complete set of Universal, Provable Knowledge, is ridicule the right approach to those who do not?
Perhaps you would be inclined to understand, teach, etc. In any case, I suspect that if you did possess such knowledge, then you would be less likely to suffer from the glaring insecurities that obviously motivate your current scorn.
>My approach might be philosophically no different, but it is very materially different (I didn't even attack anybody physical (in the material world), let alone kill anyone).
Actually, a frequently and perhaps most often used definition of "materially" is "substantially" or "considerably". Has nothing to do with the physical world.
I suppose it's good that I can "prove" that to you with a dictionary, else be subjected to your ridicule.
Still, possessing an attitude of intolerance towards others, then feigning superiority when the intolerance of others plays out in the physical world seems myopic.
In either case, I suppose that it is a starting place that you agree that your approach to these issues is not unlike the intolerant approach of those whom attacked Hebdo. Seems that, from here, you would want to explore whether that is wise.