No, actually not. Atomic clocks are relatively stable vs. orbital clocks, they are “advancing” with respect to one particular rotational clock, the earth.
Edmund Halley noticed that historical records of eclipses were occuring at the wrong places. He conjuctured that orbits might have been slowing up.
We accept atomic clocks as better time standards for two reasons, theoretically they subjected to fewer disturbances and as a pratical matter ensembles of atomic clocks are mutually consistent, much more so than orbital or rotational clocks.
The problem with atomic clocks is that they are affected by gravity, thus the one in Denver and the one in Greenwich run at different rates, (Denver the mile high city, Greenwich at sea level). Also, in 1984 Dr.Van Flandern at the US Naval Observatory noted that the atomic clocks were slowing down relative to orbital time. Since then this has been confirmed by others.