2 Corinthians 12:10 "That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong."
If you are truly offended by the message itself, in light of this verse, it seems that James R. is ironically empowering you-even if he were intending the video as an offense, which I'm quite sure isn't the case.
1 Corinthians 16:22 "If anyone does not love the Lord-a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!"
I'm obliged to point out how Christians have stigmatized people like James with curses and pejorative epithets of "wickedness" and "depravity", so for you to be offended seems out of place. Your "deep deep offense" came off as contrived and spiteful if you were speaking as an "offended christian", but seeing as you did not seem to be upset with the content (which was the core of the issue) but with an alleged abuse of moderator power...you're comments seem needless. I, like (Q), invite you to make fun of nontheists (me in particular), but I should warn you, you'll be hard pressed to find derisive material in the reason most of us align our lives with.
At any rate, is what is good only good because god says it is (and is thus completely arbitrary) or is it essentially good whether or not god recognizes or endorses those things himself? If the former, morality in christianity is not absolute (iow, what is good 3000 years ago is good today) because most of OT law is irrelevant to today's new covenant (Hebrews 7:12) and the religious are guilty of a similar form moral relativism they try to label others with. OR if it is the later which is true, then God had nothing to do with morality and what is good would exist apart from God. It would have nothing to do with him. In one, you lose the concept of absolutes so beloved by the religious...and in the other God is your divine endorser of the finest aspects of man made morality, which is also evolving with the times (zeitgeist). So which one is it? Or is it a third option I've failed to consider?