I do not consider myself to have a 'religion' however I do consider myself to have a 'philosophical position' on theology which I arrived at through a particular 'philosophical approach'.
My philosophical position on theology is one of strong agnosticism, which is atheistic towards most concepts of God and theistic only towards the most vaguely defined inactive preternatural force (not entity) which created matter and energy, space and time - PROVIDED that there is such a thing as time which has an origin. That stated, my theological position does not state that this force is not an entity (though I do not believe it is) or that it is not intelligent (though I do not believe it is) or that it is not actively involved in our current existence (though I do not believe it is), nor does it make any mention on the possibile single/multiple nature of the force or any heirarchy or specificity between such segments; as such my theological position is able to be adjusted to incorporate just about any other theological position in a way that enables meaningful discussion.
My philosophical position referring to such a vaguely defined, inactive preternatural existence is one where the ramifications to people are negligible, outside of the field of philosophical (and theological) study, therefore, I find that apatheism is a reasonable response.
The philosophical approach I use depends on the situation, if I am merely contemplating I tend to use an Ignostic based, falsification approach, where I firstly attempt to define or describe the concept I am considering and then attempt to use a logical framework to establish inherent contradictions of the different concepts being examined. That stated, this is only used as a guide for me to examine the position, while I believe it is possible that logic may not be applicable to the preternatural, I believe it is our best tool to do so in a rational fashion, therefore I am a strong adherent of logical approaches.
When discussing other theological positions or approaches with others, I will vary my approach depending upon whether it is a rational discussion such as a debate (where I commonly use the Ignostic approach) or whether it is a non-rational discussion (where I use a more fideistic one, though I am sometimes prone to use rational components in such a discussion - which is a fallacy).
While I was at school the idea of what constitutes a religion actually resolved around the degree of formality involved; religious texts, myths, rituals, symbols and so forth. Personally I feel that this level of formal codification and institutionalisation is what separates a religion from a theological position, and a philosophical position on theology which is similar, without a focus on worship of any sort.