are vegetarians more ethical by not eating meat?

[littleendian]

We're talking about slaughter, which is actively killing an animal, usually in the prime of its life when the flesh tastes best, and I suspect you might object to someone killing you in your twenties, painfully or otherwise.

But according to my value system I deem my worth above that of an animal other than human. I don't claim a paragon of virtue in this, just that my value system is that way.

You cannot derive an ought from an is. As was mentioned, our value systems are the result of millenia of dogmatism, so it's a good idea to evaluate them closely. Atheism is set out to change how we view the world, and one of the key things here is our morality, which will change dramatically.

I also noticed you anthropomorphize unto animals. Am I to think that my evolutionary line is the same as, say, a sheep? Or that my view (or any human) of reality is the same?

That's not my argument at all, no.

Because our value systems can, like any other object of science, be scrutinized regarding their integrity. Right now, our value systems have been formed by millenia of Christian or heathen dogma, and I propose we need to re-evaluate quite a few aspects of it.

Culturally, that might be true. But quite a lot of people, also through history, have been atheistic, it isn't until after the Enlightenment that they stopped burning atheists at the stake.

Indeed, yet it seems very likely that our value systems are much more defined by the "thinking" of the superstitious masses, not the few outstanding rational individuals. Also, many of the great philosophers and people you would refer to as early pioneer scientists were themselfs in fact devout Christians and derived their value systems from the bible.

It's only in the Western comfort zone that vegetarianism, as I can see (although I'm not sure of it), has been tenable. People have lived and feed on livestock for longer than recorded human history. I don't claim an historic antecedence that would justify it today, although I would point out that it's a new invention of culture to calculate in the option of vegetarianism in western culture.

Very true, and as was repeatedly pointed out, if someone can't grow crops and has to rely on animals to feed himself, then this is of course not immoral. But today we Westerners live in a world of plenty, we have access to all fruits and vegetables found on this planet, so it is a valid question whether we need to kill innocent and defenseless animals merely to please our taste buds.

Probably is, yet there is only one species of animal that has Mind Theory and even a concept of suffering, the rest just suffers without ever knowing or coming to a realization: "I'm suffering" or "He's suffering" because that requires a whole new tier of experience of mind.

Theory of mind simply states that humans become aware and take into consideration that other's have a subjective world view and a mind of their own. Totally aside that animals have been shown to know the concept of reciprocity and also to an extend ToM: This has nothing to do with the ability to suffer and the will to live that is present in any evolved being, therefore ToM has nothing to do with the present argument. Don't hide behind complex theoretical constructs, the issue at hand is quite simple.

The only way out of the issue is to adopt a Cartesian world view of all animals being merely robots responding to external stimuli with nothing but mechanical responses. Aside from that only religious dogma can get you out of issue of having to justify why humans supposedly are so special.