I don't write for atheists per se, I write for everyone. However, as an atheist, I won't inject supernaturalism into the religion: therefore, the religion mixes

I don't write for atheists per se, I write for everyone. However, as an atheist, I won't inject supernaturalism into the religion: therefore, the religion mixes effortlessly with whatever supernatural predispositions you already have or lack. In that sense I suppose it can be called "meta-religious". When I speak to myself I sometimes classify it as "a material dharma" -- but "dharma" is religious jargon from India and won't make so much sense if I don't explain its etymology and its meanings in those religions. (A passable definition is "essence", used idiomatically. So you have to ask, "the essence of what?") When we talk about authentic, virtuous living, the commitments we make, how we work together, how we conceptualize the world, and how we find meaning therein, then the supernatural might teach or inspire these things, but we should not mistake the supernatural as identical with these things. So, you might say for example, "the Light shines from God." I am not going to speak about God, but about the Light, which is its own thing; and I remain non-committal about its origins. (Too much blood has been shed historically because "They don't believe in Our Gods.") Or you might say for example "the True Reward from the Light is reaped in the afterlife." Again, that's fine by me, as long as you acknowledge that, in this life, the Light is its own reward -- authentic living is worth it for its own sake. Thus we head into a future where theism and atheism are as one and enlightenment depends upon the character one cultivates, not the doctrines one professes. (Edit: I want to add that the real paradox in that sentence is self-contained in the subsentence, "I'm writing a religion.")