To prove your position, you must disprove mine.
Otherwise, your position is not provable either.
Now, let this thread die.
It is from 2003, and was resurrected by a TROLL.
When you make a statement, people are curious to see why you think that's true, and thus ask you for "proof." You can't just respond with "well, can you disprove it?" because they are not saying you are wrong yet. They can't prove it or disprove it -- that's why they are asking you (hoping that, since you made the statement, then you have some sort of "proof"). They are simply trying to decide whether to agree/disagree with you.
Not true, and for you to think otherwise shows two things: that you don't understand what "proof" is, and also that you don't really understand what you're trying to prove in the first place.
Now (again) to your challenge. It's easy to say that I can perceive something of reality, and at the same time state that my perception of reality is not complete. I can say, then, that reality exists insofar as I can sense it. Descarte's Cogito ergo sum was able to get to that point, though he bogged down after that. Beyond what my limited senses tell me, I cannot say what reality really is.
You said something far more broad: that reality exists apart from your senses. One can certainly believe that it does (and indeed I do), but it's not an easy thing to prove -- you must demonstrate to yourself that "stuff" will remain after you're no longer around to sense it.
Now, let this thread die.
Happily.