Are there any theists here who believe religious skeptics ( agnostics,atheists ) are inherently less moral than theists simply because they question and/or reject all God claims. If YES, on what basis do theists give themselves the higher moral ground ?
Kind of, although I'd be open to being proven wrong that's only been my conclusion thus far.
First, I would agree one does not need to be religious to be moral or to have moral limitations.
Second, to use Elvira source let suppose 20% of the world's population are religious skeptics. I would still think for the most part that much of that 20% is more moral than let say 90% of the remaining 80%.
Ideologies, of which religions are no exception, often have dangerous flaws especially when applied with zeal. Since, atheists or agonistic are for the most part those having rejected their assessment of at least supernatual ideologies - choosing rather to focus on other things - I would certainly see that as an example of a courageous moral step. Especially since on the subjective level, I think the emotional reasons for that rejection is grounded in moral reasoning.
The moral limitations of religious skepticism in my opinion is in not committing oneself to the abstraction of there being a Highest Moral truth. I would note though, I see predominate feelings acting like lens more than cognition to be at the root of peoples moral foundations. As such, one lens is how I would measure their morality level with moral behavoir merely a symptom we could test. That obviously could be challanged, as could my own personal ranking of them.
Now, to the credit of religious skeptics. Religious ideologies are inclined to taint absolute moral truth and in this way cause one to loose footing even to the point of acting in Satanic or Luciferic ways. Rejecting that or even just the general smaller moral failing that result,seems to cause reason and evidence to fill the gap, which certainly aliven one to guarding against or elevating from ideological possession. This humility is morally essential.
The problem for atheists in my view is that in their elimination of highest moral truth abstraction, it degenerates unknown absolutism into relativism which degrades the tools of scepticism, reason and evidence by removing the context of humility. It seem to me, this leap of faith into nothingness, total moral freedom, creates a predominate feelings of pride that blocks moral develop past a certian level.
Agnostics avoid that trap but get stuck in another in that the highest moral truth must come via being as morally objective as possible. Without any leap of faith, without trusting the subjective judgement - one is forever applying a lens of judgement, always dividing moral right from wrong, acting emotional toward that outcome. The highest moral truth must see our world as perfect(as diffcult an idea as that is to accept), this truth means to be a perfectly moral being one must be willing to embrace faith despite its many dangers. Only in subjective freedom can one be a truly loving being. And more to your question, a perfectly moral being in my view requires being a truly loving being. Something I known I for one fall shot on, but hope to embrace with time.