Right, but this outside your idea of ''universal facts'', which, since they wouldn't be subjective, is not relevant to how we describe our 'truths'
Universal facts would be mathematics and physics. They exist independent of our environment and people.
Subjective facts would be our experiences since they are not lies (a lot of us aren't delusional). We do experience things but they are not like mathematics. They are not independent of ourselves.
Some call subjective facts beliefs; some use faith; some just say opinions.
Those who use subjective facts as facts (former definition) is what puzzles me. I haven't figured the logistics in why they say the latter definition is the former.
There is nothing wrong with subjective facts.
Best example is god. God is a subjective fact and it isn't independent of our experiences, beliefs, and opinions (and other people's testimonies and their beliefs, experiences, and opinions). Many RF threads tackle this because many believers (not just Christian) mix the latter definition with the former.
What happens is that it oppresses (and causes wars etc) on others because they feel what they know is true (the former) therefore must be implemented as law and so forth.
I disagree and feel that is further from the truth. I
know what I experienced is a fact but I would never call it the former because I feel that's oppressing people who disagree or don't share my point of view. It's my personal preference.
It wouldn't be an issue if we didn't see the results of mixing the two in history not just on RF. Interesting to talk about if we can get beyond the semantics and look at the meaning and how it applies to people and affects others as well.