Correct, truth is a word I am using by mere human vocabulary. The problem is that it doesn't matter what words I use, none of them would exist without me. I understand this. But to say that everything would not exist without human perception is silly. Existence is infallible. To say everything only exists because we can perceive it is like saying that anything is possible if you open your mind to it. Please, we aren't that important in the grand scheme of things.

Truth and existence are words that would not exist without us, this is correct, but that does not mean that things do not exist without the word 'exist' existing. With or without us, existence exists, in truth. Word or no word, perception or no perception.

Ideas are strange. Love and pain and sorrow and rights... they are real and yet not real. For the purpose of how I've argued before, they are only real in relative to human perception. When you remove perception and the ability to perceive, they do not exist.

Do they still exist in truth even if they cease to exist beyond humankind?

They do, but only as long as humankind exists. Our thoughts are uniform with us. We live and die with them. They were a truth as long as our existence was. Things beyond our existence, however, exist in truth always. They exist before, during, and after, up until some cosmic force destroys them. It does not matter if we can percieve them, that does not change their state of existence in truth.

No, I do not. :) Things exist without humanity. They did before and they will when we are dead.

Truth is absolute, merely because it bypasses human perception. While human perception is the only thing humans can you use to observe, this does not make things untrue. Just because you cannot see something does not mean it does not exist. For all we know, all the colors we see are actually different colors in truth, but that does not mean they are not truthfully the colors that we cannot see.

Truth in infallible, perception is not.