Do not dismiss my comment as just semantics. We do have to understand the definition of the word "skepticism" if we are to have a meaningful discussion of skepticism. Anybody is free to assume the attitude that the only true skepticism is their skepticism, and that other people who are skeptical about different things are simply wrong. But actually, the word skepticism does NOT mean doubting things that are actually wrong and which deserve to be doubted. It means doubting things, period. One can, therefore, be correctly skeptical or incorrectly skeptical.

Furthermore, it is not always obvious what is true and what is false - although sometimes it is obvious. You & I can agree that obviously, the 1969 moon landing did happen. Those who are skeptical about that are just being foolish. But then, there are other issues which are not so easily resolved. Suppose I am skeptical about (for example) the many worlds hypothesis of quantum mechanics. No one can really say for sure (based on present scientific knowledge) whether this theory is true or not, and possibly we will never know. Suppose I am skeptical about the ability of the European Union to survive as a political and economic entity in the face of the impending Greek default, and other divisive forces at work. Am I right to be skeptical? We can't say for sure. No one can actually be certain what the future of the European Union will be. I am allowed to be skeptical anyway. Skepticism is about my state of mind, it is not about the truth or falsehood of the object of my skepticism.

Religion vs. atheism is also a special category. As I have mentioned, atheists are skeptical about religion but religious people are skeptical about atheism. And weirdly enough, Michael Shermer, perhaps the world's most distinguished skeptic, did write a column in Scientific American expressing his skepticism about atheism! I almost fell out of my chair, when I saw that. Michael Shermer, of all people, being skeptical about the wrong thing. But still, it is skepticism nonetheless - and he did make a rather eloquent case, I should add. (Atheists are often very offensive, by attacking people's most cherished beliefs, and shouldn't we all try to get along?) I personally am an atheist and I could easily say that anyone who is skeptical about atheism is not a true skeptic, only skepticism about religion is true skepticism. However, I can't really say that the debate about religion is over. That would be a rather odd conclusion when the majority of the world's population is still religious (or at least claims to be religious) and many well educated and intelligent people are still religious, and have produced very sophisticated philosophical defenses of religion. While I can easily dismiss religious lunatics such as Pat Robertson, I cannot so easily dismiss Bishop Spong. So the debate is not over. And that being the case, either side can legitimately claim to be skeptical about the opposing side.

So no, your personal opinions do not define skepticism. It does not just mean being doubtful about those things that you personally doubt. I say this even though I think that chances are, you & I actually are skeptical about the same things, for the most part (but I'll bet we can find at least some disagreements, too).