Scepticism and atheism ?

I don't even get why there is a distinction here to begin with. Gods do not exist and anyone who wants to think that they do is just kidding themselves with wishful thinking.

yes and no

we can prove that god has limits

for instance god cannot put life on the moon

You mean like while the moon is the Moon...

...thrown in some asteroids with water, warm it a little bit with the gravitational pull of a gas giant like Jupiter in order to gain geological activity, and consequently create an atmosphere and you might get some microbes there going on for a while...

Maybe you meant "God" cannot but be "God"...
(that which is perfect cannot be changed)
I call it phenomenologically "Cause" and "Effect"...
...Being that is...(The Universe like it must be)

just confirms why I bailed.

When I go to heaven and what I should look forward too. God never stops teaching lessons about kindness and friendship. Suffering endured in a lifetime earns us divine knowledge. Passion toward the unattached, heaven is being desire less. Flattery corrupts mans true identity, boasting about being something more than an atom is falling in a sea of doubt. Heaven is where your enemies are because they challenge everything you do, friends often flatter and inflate your ego unintentially. Ego will always exist there is no death of ego. Think of the road less traveled. Don’t drink alcohol or you will lose your wit to triumph over the battles brewing inside you.

Who created the age limitations of man and every other living creature

Such lovely incoherence.

I think it is important to avoid mixing up arbitrary and narrow definitions of words that, in popular usage, have a range of meanings, with the logical elements of an argument about what they may imply.

I can imagine one who doubts the existence of a god or creator, but who is not willing to abandon it entirely, labelling himself as a "skeptic". Similarly I can imagine one who believes the issue unknowable and - as far as he is concerned - settled in that regard, labelling himself as an "agnostic". In the same fashion, I can imagine one who is convinced there is no god or creator and believes alternative views surely wrong, labelling himself as an "atheist". I believe these, or something very close to them are the usual interpretation of these distinct words. Indeed, they illustrate the usual distinctions made among these distinct terms.

Since most philosophers agree that neither the existence or non existence of a creator can be proven in terms of observable reality, I see no merit in arguments about which may be "superior".

At the same time, I won't argue with Setanta's view that - for him, at least - there is no meaningful distinction to be made between skeptic and atheist. I believe he is simply imposing a certain interpretation on a word that does indeed admit it, but which usually implies something slightly different. In any event there is no logical merit in defining the difference away - that is simply a semantical device with no inherent interest. More interesting is the difference that is usually implied between these distinct words.

Jesus Christ, O'George, this is total bullshit. I not only have not expressed such a view, it is antithetical to what i wrote which you quoted at the beginning of your silly screed here. What part of "Let me emphasize . . . that one can be a skeptic and still be a theist, or an agnostic or an atheist" did you fail to understand? I have not at any time in this thread stated or implied that there is no meaningful distinction to be made between sketptics and atheists. Are you off your medication?

Perhaps O'George refers to this. In that case, i would ask him what part of "Without necessarily endorsing the position . . . " he failed to understand.

Smoke 34 i think if i said there was an orange orbiting saturn, you would struggle to disprove me but we would all agree its not true. by not being able to disprove something doesnt make it true

Too bad you're leaving Jeeprs. Let me just say that Mu is the way I chop wood.