Note he says "moral or ethical action or behaviour". Not to any particular standard of morality. (Note since the Bible is also morally ambiguous and/or impossible to follow literally, that's true for believers as well.)

People never believe they are evil. They can justify what they are doing as right; it's practically why our brains exist. His argument is that belief or non-belief doesn't affect our possible range of choices.

Mother Teressa was not a good person by any strech of the imagination. Much of the money she raised was for the church coffers and little and less saw it's way into the hand's of the needy. Some of her care facilities actually set up to help the poor are beyond horrible and could have used more money badly. She was obsesed with suffering and though it brought people closer to god.

And by the way most charitable organizations are secular not religious and often do more good as they give freely without trying to sell their superstitions. I am an athiest and have many athiest friends/family who provide me with moral support and encouragement as do i for them. 

PS: All athiest do not believe in big government. I do not believe in the government but rather people helping out other people from the kindness of their hearts rather than being forced to by the government/god.

So, what matters to you more is the condition of the heart of the giver than the condition of the person who is in ineed?  When I see a comment like the one you wrote, said by many others, more times than not, the person is more than willing to have more people suffer if indivduals are less than willing to give, because giving is seen as a virtue of someone, rather than the end result of what happens to the people in question. 

And also, how about questioning the person who has the bad attitude about letting go of some of their wealth to make sure those in need get something?  Maybe the issue, more times than not about the "goodness of the heart" is that the heart isn't as good as people want to make it out to be.

How does one determine what "moral or ethical action or behavior" is, unless it measure up to a certain standard of morality?  And what you said is a kicker here.  Anyone could take what Hitchens said, and if they don't want to do anything, don't label the issue in questio as an ethical necessity.

No the condition of the person in need is of primary concern i just believe that people should do it of their own free will rather than being forced to do it. And yes many people give to improve their self image rather than out of kindness. For example the Government give's help/other people's money to people for votes or religions will give their help in order to convert people to their religion. 

The heart can be as good as people make it to be. Call me idealistic but that's the way i think people can be if the try hard enough. People have heart but choose to ignore it for their own conveinience. And yes their are some legitimately bad people.

And just out of curiosity what was your solution for helping the needy again?

"moral or ethical action or behavior" = choice. that we make. good or bad by anyone's standards. I'd like to see the context - does Hitchens mean for that statement to mean 'good'? Right now it reads like 'any'.

Comparing one random atheist who was apparently immoral because he smoked and got a divorce to a bunch of hypothetical Mormons (in reality, there are Mormons who smoke and get divorced, you know) is not a good way to determine whether or not atheism is more moral than religiousness. Besides, it is pretty obvious that Hitchens was responding to the pervasive notion that people have of religious people being more moral than atheists, to the point that a large number of Americans say outright that they would refuse to vote for an atheist.

Because people want stuff?

Of course that said... while an atheist can be as moral as a religious person... research has shown on average, they aren't, and that on average the less religious you are the more prodding that is needed to get you to help others. 

Those late night abused animals and African children commercials more or less exist specifically because of atheists and unobserving religious folk.

So your argument is that slavery is morally ambiguous?  That it is sometimes okay to keep another person against their will and force them to perform labor for you?  This illustrates Hitchen's point precisely.  The only way to reach a conclusion of moral acceptability of slavery is to either a.) be told it is okay by religion or b.) hold a view that a separate group of people (the slaves) are innately inferior to another (the slavers) and hence its okay to treat them as animals.

My assertion that slavery is immoral is not based on my "modern view" but on logical analysis and a lack of a superiority view of myself over others.  You argue that slavery is conditionally moral based how society feels about it, I argue that slavery is unconditionally immoral and society allowed it and judged it okay due to selfishness, greed, and racial or religious bias (among other things)

I notice you make the mistake a lot of religious people make and treat atheism as a religion.  It isn't.  Atheists are all individual people with a variety of motivations and personalities sharing no common group of beliefs or doctrines.  They just believe in one less god than you do.  That is all that connects these people into a "group"

A religion on the other hand, has a set of history, beliefs and tenants that are agreed upon by all participants and can be pointed to as motivators for that group.  This is the crux of Hitchen's argument.  There is no moral thing that religion allows someone to do that an atheist cannot.  Religion does however justify immoral things which there is no basis for justification for an atheist.

Source?