I'm a pantheist pagan agnostic, libertarian communist, and cynically idealistic dreamer who likes reading and writing, hiking and skiing, and roleplaying games.
I contain multitudes, and don't consider any of this the least bit paradoxical.
From an LJ quiz that was going around a year or two ago:
Do I believe...
In God? There is meaning in the universe, sometimes things happen for a reason other than random chance, we all have free will to make our own way in life within constraints, actions have consequences, none of us are unconnected from the world, and we're all in this together. That's god.
In ghosts? I prefer the more general term "spirits." I know enough to know I don't know. It is possible that people and things leave impressions that aren't fully physical that continue to remind the world of their existence even absent their physical presence. Maybe they're just psychological impressions left in the collective unconsciousness, if such a thing exists. Maybe they're just passed down from person to person as myth and become real through social repetition. Maybe they're just imagination filling in the blanks of a coy universe refusing to reveal all of its missing pieces. I don't know. I don't believe in ectoplasm and Kirlian photography, and I don't believe in the human soul. I don't believe that the dead are tied to physical locations or talk to the living. But sometimes I get the impression that the world is molded like clay. It remembers.
In aliens? Aliens are spirits of foreign appearance or origin. In Bigfoot? Bigfoot's a nature spirit. In fairies? Fairies are aliens.
In Fraggles? Fraggles are muppets, which are fictional puppets.
In werewolves? Werewolves are nature spirits. Spirits probably don't exist. In vampires? Vampires are metaphors. The real dark secret is that it's plain old humans who drink the blood of the living for their own (passing) immortality. In Nessie? Spirit. In existing dinosaurs? No. Read a fucking biology textbook. In Santa? Santa's a real cultural phenomenon. Santa is not a real person; nor is Santa a spirit.
In ESP? In psychics? Some people are more perceptive than others, and can pattern-match better than others. Pattern-matching is wrong more often than it is right, but it's the only way to solve some problems. It's also one of the most human of capacities. Nobody can read the future. Nobody can read minds. Nobody can see things at a distance absent modern technology. Some people just pay closer attention. Some use that attention to discover clever ways to part less perceptive people of their money.
In superstition? It has been shown in studies that people who are perceived as "lucky" are those who consciously or unconsciously make their own luck. They apply their will to put themselves into advantageous opportunities. Similarly, unlucky people sabotage themselves by putting themselves into disadvantageous opportunities. Superstitions are more often than not a form of sabotage. There's nothing magical about them.
In auras? Aura-reading is projection. You get the creeps, you see sketchy colors. You feel warm and fuzzy, you see pretty colors. Probably you're synesthetic. Possibly you've had training in visualization. Whatever the case, you're projecting.
In magic? Some people can make their own luck. They apply their will to problems. Maybe they're just motivating themselves, and therefore increase their own performance through simple mind tricks. Maybe they can manipulate other people because those people are willing to accept the existence of various dubious spiritual phenomena, which creates a common psychological framework on which to trick people. Maybe they're really molding the forgotten bits and dark corners of clay that make up subjective existence. 99% of magicians are provable fools or charlatans, and I strongly doubt the other 1%. It's probably nothing.
In appearances? That's a meaningless question. In true love? That's redundant. If it's false, it's not love. In love in general? Like evolution, this is self-evident. In soul mates? No. No two people are made for each other, and each person can find happiness with any number of other people in the real world. I like Kim Stanley Robinson's idea in The Years of Rice and Salt (borrowed from Eastern cultures, I believe) of souls that are frequently reincarnated together. But I don't believe in souls. A soul is really nothing but a point of view. I'd like to believe we have an existence in the interstitial spaces between lives or points of view, but I think I'm fooling myself. In happy endings? Some stories have happy endings, and some don't. Mostly it depends upon when you stop writing and how you edit the book. Absent a writer and editor, stories just keep on telling themselves.
In equal rights for gay people? Yes. Do you believe in equal rights for people? Then you believe in equal rights for gay people, or you're a hypocrite. In equal rights for women? Yes. See the above. In abortions? Yes. Not just as a choice, but as the correct choice. There's no such thing as a spurious abortion. In adoptions? Yes. Who would be against adoptions? I think they're better if they are open, and that abortion is often a better choice, but it's the same choice.
In evolution? This question is silly. Evolution is observed fact. It's not a matter of opinion. The prevailing evidence supports a complex version of the theory of natural selection. Creation occurs within the universe, not outside of it. Only that last sentence is controversial in any meaningful sense, and it's a religious question. But religious people have made this an issue of politics out of their own deep ignorance.
In cloning? I support therapeutic cloning. I oppose reproductive cloning.
In saving the rain forests? All life should be preserved within reasonable bounds of balance. The rate at which we are destroying rain forests is unsustainable and immoral. In saving dying species? See last question. Species are dying because of human action at an unacceptable rate, and it's relatively trivial to do something about it. In the human race? We're important, because we're the only beings in the universe (so far) who can express its conscience, and tell stories about what it all means. We often fail in this responsibility. In animal rights? Yes. Like all rights, they have limits when they clash with the rights of others--such as the right of other animals to eat and be sheltered from the elements. Cruelty has no place in civilization. Animals are our relations. You take what you need, you minimize waste and suffering, you give thanks for what you have taken, and you respect what has been lost. In recycling? It is senseless to destroy when you can reuse.
In tattoos? They're a matter of personal choice and/or cultural expression. In plastic surgery? For reconstructive or health purposes, it's essential. As a matter of choice, I often feel it's simply cover up insecurities and obscure the essence of a person. But any body modification that is a matter of personal expression and not vanity is positive.