One is general and one is specific.

In general, I believe that people are too confident in their beliefs in light of the vast disagreement amongst completely capable and intelligent experts in a given field and underestimate the impact social environment has on their belief systems. As such, I hold a number of positions on various topics that I'm more likely than not, completely epistemologically unjustified in holding. Of course, I think most people are in the same boat as me, so it is more general to everyone and everything.

Specifically, I hold hard indeterminism to be true. I reject that free will exists and reject that free will is compatible with something being determined/completely random. I am agnostic about determinism being true specifically, but I find that irrelevant to the main point: our conception of free will and the basis for personal responsibility is in error. The reason this is weak is based in the fact that I find compatibilism (free will and determinism can both be true) so unintuitive and so blantantly wrong that I cannot make any deep level observstion on the subject. I don't feel that I should have to argue agsinst a position that needs a couple pages to show false.