Psychologically speaking, I suppose we have to say that they are both right. It would not be healthy to go against one's natural disposition. William James, who divided up believers and non-believers in a somewhat similar way, thought that this was reasonable. Both types of skeptic think that the other type is foolish, not in error. I grant that in polite society we rarely express our true feelings about one another and that skeptics are no exception.
Skeptics are notorious for providing arguments for their positions.
I don't know of a single case where an Apollonian Skeptic became a believer in the supernatural because of arguments, or of a Dionysian Skeptic becoming an atheist because of an experience. They tolerate one another or argue with one another because they believe the evidence supports their own point of view and they believe that ultimately any reasonable person would agree with them if only they saw things correctly. It has been my experience that intelligence, knowledge and education are not essentially connected to the tendency to believe or disbelieve in the supernatural or the occult. As William James put it, our temperament determines these tendencies for us. The value of either type of belief is to be found in its fruits, he said.