Openly "Secular"?

Two conflicting Atheisti statements, just today. First is the complaint that secularism is NOT Atheist, it is just the removal of religion from government. But next is the discovery of a website called "Openly Secular", which is filled with selfie-videos of people apparently "coming out" as "secular".

It appears that Atheists are now afraid to admit to their Atheism. So they claim to be "secular", which is an absurdity on the one hand, yet is tacitly an admission that secular actually means Atheist on the other hand.

Even the first definition of secular is blatantly Atheist, purging all religious premises and artifacts from government is obviously the same as installing Atheism as the state worldview, Atheism as the state concept of reality and Atheism as the state concept of the origin of man and human rights. Secularism is a subset of Atheism and its views and principles (or lack thereof) are specifically Atheist and NOT religious. It is either intellectual confusion, intellectual malfeasance, or outright lying that claims otherwise.

I didn't watch any of the selfie videos, there are too many there to choose from. I might pick some later to check out the logic of the claimants.

OK, I did. Andrea Wilkins rejected religion because she thinks its OK to live outside of religious precepts. Her conclusion is that she and her friends are good people who want to help other people. That's completely without any information involving how she defines "good" vs. "not good", or how much she actually helps other people.

Thomas Dixon rejected religion early on in adolescence as non-falsifiable, physically (Scientism); he felt that his identity was accidental, not purposeful; he chooses humanism as a "positive" identity rather than the negative identity of Atheism. And that is dissembly at best and is ignorant of two things: what science actually consists of and what humanism is based on and derived from. Were he intellectually honest he would claim his rejection of deity, not his acceptance of fogged over totalitarianism.

Roy Bates was raised "irreligious" i.e. Atheist; was exposed to many other religions; became an Atheist/humanist Navy chaplain because "back then chaplains helped" but now they want to convert; is a member of the Military Atheist and Freethinker organization; thinks that fundamentalist supervisors punish Atheists in their performance evaluations; claims that the reason people think Atheists are bad, evil, is that they were indoctrinated from childhood.

But here's the thing: there is no document of Atheist Moral Principles, because there are no common moral principles amongst Atheists. Further, humanism is now the obscured version of the Humanist Manifest I, a blatantly totalitarian Atheist takeover of all institutions, public and private. Manifestos II and III are merely fogged up versions of the same thing, but using language of butterflies and flowers. Finally, being without moral grounding, how can he claim to be "good"? This is the common logic defect which afflicts all Atheists, no matter how they conceal their identity with other -isms: if you have denied all principles regarding "goodness" and "decency" then you have no grounding for claiming that you are good or decent. So that is what an honest Atheist chaplain has to offer: ungrounded and false claims of the "goodness" of Atheists.

Let's put it more pictorially. If you deny the foundation underlying the walls of separation between good and evil, then the walls are without meaning as they fall to the slightest challenge. So there is effectively no difference between good and evil for the Atheist, regardless of how they might protest otherwise. In fact, their protest is itself logically false, and that is understood by those who actually recognize the need for a wall of separation which is firmly set on an unmovable foundation. Atheists can and will be on both sides of the walls, and they will call that "good".

Atheists are oblivious to this, because they have invested in themselves the moral authority to determine "good" and "evil" in whatever manner is convenient for themselves. And this gives them the false self-image of moral elitism, and the arrogance to judge everyone else by their own, personal standards. Further, this is the basis which leads Atheists toward the Messiahism of Leftist political and social totalitarianism. And that effect, from that cause, is nearly universal; scratch an Atheist, reveal a Leftist and vice-versa.

So if you love liberty, then you recognize that Atheism is not about that. AtheoLeftism is about tolerating the moral anarchy of the AtheoLeftist while being so intolerant of those who love liberty that they must be silenced, legally. Therefore, Atheism is NOT good in any sense. And Atheists are lying when they make that claim.