^ I completely agree with everything you just said.

It seems the only point we disagree on is calling intuition knowledge. And as long as I understand that you're using a different criteria for spiritual knowledge than you do for more objective knowledge (Notice I said more objective, not totally objective, as I agree we can't know anything totally objectively, though obviously some things have a lot more objective truth to them than others).

As long as I understand this difference in the meaning of the word knowledge, then I don't have a problem with you using it that way except for one thing. Most people who haven't been involved in this discussion don't understand that it means something different. They automatically assume you're using it to mean the same thing they mean by knowledge, which gives it more credibility than it deserves.

And I understand you're not doing that deliberately, you've just always understood the term in that way, and that whenever anybody talks about religious or spiritual knowledge it's to be taken as something different from factual knowledge. However, I'm quite sure that at some point some clever theologian realized that if he gets religious/spiritual people to use the term in this way then, without their realizing it's a deception, they can gain some credibility. The people like yourself aren't implicit in this, they're pawns being manipulated by an evil genius behind the scenes who understood the political power of re-defining words (a favorite trick of people who want to gain legitimacy for dubious claims).

So now there are armies of people using the term in that way, not knowing that they're being used as pawns in a political game.