I don't adhere to one, but I try to learn from what they all have in common and what they have to teach. Whatever, lots of religious tomes have good stuff in them. Any particular religion to me seems way too specific in its outlook. So, ignosticism is all up in there for me:
Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.
Basically, I find many religious frameworks to be too prescriptive and narrow for me to be bothered to adhere to them. Must I necessarily derive my state of being from a myth that Atum pounded off on a Friday night and ejaculated the whole universe; that a consensus among thetans shaped the world because they believed it to exist; or that a more prude deity simply said that things exist and that made them exist, kinda like in The Secret? Suppose I subscribe to the third of these creation stories. Does it matter, further, whether my Oprah's-book-of-the-month-club-influenced deity also happened to have burned bushes, issued commandments, healed sick people every now and again, and tested a man's faith by taking all of his stuff away? I don't think those stories in particular have much to offer to inform one's everyday practice in a meaningful way.. at least, no more than any individual Brothers Grimm story would.
Really, I'd say that the concept of monism (basically that God and the universe are equivalent, one in the same, etc.) drives quite a bit of my moral outlook. (Exaggerated a bit, I could consider Spinoza to be a personal prophet.) Generally, then, morality to me stems fundamentally stuff we do affects us and also the entire universe, because we're all intertwined, and so acting good is a cool way to act. Or, alternatively, that "we're all connected, man *smokes a j*"
I would also accept Agnosticsm as a label. Close enough.