Let me emphasize (again, i believe, i believe i said this before) that one can be a skeptic and still be a theist, or an agnostic or an atheist. I get mildly torqued off at people who insist that an atheist must, perforce, deny that there is a god. This is central to a naïve, simple-minded argument peddled by some agnostics who want to claim the moral high ground on the issue of "to god or not to god." ...
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.