[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Micah]
> Nothing can be shown to exist independent of humans.

This statement is ambiguous; it can mean either:
a) If anything exists independent of humans, its existence can't be shown
b) If anything exists, its existence can't be shown independent of humans 

[Case]
> Following the line of thinking you suggest, you have no business
> talking about what other humans or Man in the plural experiences. You are
> advocating some weird brand of solipsism.


What is the argument for this claim? E.g.,:
1) Nothing can be shown to exist independent of humans
2) No other humans can be shown to exist independent of me
3) :. Nothing can be shown to exist independent of me

Even if 1) - 3) is a valid argument; 2) does not follow from 1).
Craig