Epistemological: Classical skepticism mixed with fideism (for me, they're two sides of the same coin), certainly in the case of religion (I'm a Christian of sorts), but not alone. It is beyond human power to know anything in any conclusive way; there always remain ways to fundamentally doubt or invalidate any proposition, no matter how reasonable it first seems. However, there is faith, both in the sense of believing on the basis of something other than knowledge as such and in the sense of an intervening Grace that convinces.
Ethical: Moral nihilist leading on to Kierkegaardian Religious. No ethical standards are available to reason. It is by choice that we adopt an ethical standard, although there do seem to be universal feelings of wrong-doings, such as consciously mistreating someone who is innocent. Relativism seems obvious, but enters the self-contradiction of offering the universal explanation that it denies exists. It seems logical that any human preoccupied with the ethical, will constantly come up against its impossibility, in that even if ethical standards were available to reason, and even those we choose ourselves, they remain in an ultimate sense impossible to adhere to. One logical route of this quandary is the Kierkegaardian Religious position, and Christian morality in general, which one chooses to adopt, and then it turns out the point of Christian morality is something essentially different from merely being ethically good.
Of course, choice as such involves a belief in transcendence, in this case, the notion that we can transcend the moral possibilities that we are born into and caused by. That is, choice assumes that it is an act 'uncaused'. Many who emphasise choice seem to forget this, primarily because they ignore the structuralist thesis, that all our beliefs and actions are caused by something other than us, something that preceded us.
Pluralist. Reality is not reducible to one thing, substance or symbol, and attempts to reduce it as such will always fail.
Nominalist. Categories, substances, individuals, species, etc... are names that we perhaps necessarily impose on the world, not actual discoveries.
Negative theism/"atheism". I feel that properly understood Christianity presupposes atheism without denying God, i.e. God is being-less, existence-less nothingness. In brief, this is more important to describe the human religious route than for anything else; to learn humility, to be God-centred is to have no centre as such, in a project of kenosis (emptying oneself and becoming entirely passive), in a Schopenhauerian retreat from the Will that is the World.