It is good that he recognizes that there shouldn't be taboo areas of thought.

However, he defeated his own argument before even saying it by his skepticism.

"Bad?" Seriously? What is "Bad?"

Can you see bad? Can you measure bad? Can you make testable predictions upon bad?

Of course you can't. Bad is not something empirical. It is a value judgment. You can argue why there is value in value judgments (which itself would be a value judgment) but you cannot codify value judgments in the language of empirical science.

This is the problem with modern Atheists with a scientific background or science-centric focus. That treating "God" as an empirical question leaves your door open to treat "bad" (or any other philosophical concept) as an empirical question too. With the same results.