Most people who say they are skeptics are actually pseudoskeptics. You may ask what it the difference, and the answer is a pseudoskeptic develops a conclusion without the burden of proof, while a skeptic refrains from coming to a conclusion without irrefutable proof. A pseudoskeptic, will take a theory say like religion, and they question the existing beliefs based on the evidence provided much like a skeptic would, and much like a skeptic find that there isn't enough evidence to prove the existence of god. And after this is where skeptics and pseudoskeptics train of thought part ways. A pseudoskeptic will say because religion can't prove the existence of god that therefore disproves it. Do you see the logical error this person made? The skeptic will say "well it is true I can't prove the existence of god but I can't disprove it irrefutably either, so I must refrain from making a decision either way." The pseudoskeptic made the mistake of coming to the conclusion that there is no god, without providing irrefutable proof that there is none.
Basically a pseudoskeptic will claim to be an atheist, while a skeptic by its very nature must be an agnostic. They always approach a problem with an agnostic mindset and even if the can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a belief is true or false, they will then become skeptical of that belief. This might sound a little irritating because you never come to a firm conclusion, but that is why skepticism keeps disproving and reinforcing beliefs, because a skeptic is never satisfied with an accepted belief, they must always question everything.