I think religions per se are mutually-exclusive, so no, I wouldn't think you'd be able to call yourself "religious" since none of them want to share you. At this point might as well just fall back to that old chestnut of "spiritual but not religious" to be technically correct.
For added amusement you can take the bits you cherry-pick from multiple religions and repackage them under your own personalized term, now you've just created your own new religion ... like every religion before you did. Which kind of shows the (lack of) value of organized religion, and basically exposes it as little more than a social club ("community").
So which bits are you cherry-picking, things that are really more akin to philosophy, or the actual supernatural, suspension-of-disbelief-necessitating and superfluous elements that more properly make the philosophy into a religion? If it's really just philosophy, and you don't live in a country where a lack of profusely verbalizing your adherence to a religion won't get you punished by the rabid fundamentalists, then the question becomes why do you even feel the need to wrap it up in religion at all, or "belong" or "commit" to any given "ism" just to have your own beliefs?
