are vegetarians more ethical by not eating meat?

[Sal]

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.

Atheism is just one statement - sure, it enables us in ways not foreseeable by theists, but still.

Also, I don't believe in an objective morality or an intrinsic value system. I believe values are contingent on the system in which they are used, same deal with morality.

Best way to illustrate this point is that throughout history, people have valued stuff we value more/less today or not at all. For instance, slavery was deemed OK because people argued that other people could be viewed as property and they used all manner of justification for that. Today we have more egalitarian values, so people are valued the same despite being different from one another. This change, despite being some objective morality move or even correct, is more just a trend of the culture and values thereof. If you want real objectivity then biology and anthropology would be a better bet than assigning (very) human values unto our environment.

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.

Then why attribute human values unto animals?

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.

I don't, and I eat meat. Ecological meat, but still meat.

In that regard, I would have no trouble eating meat that was grown in a lab. Hell, on our way there, we could remove the part of an animals brain that makes them experience suffering, if we were so inclined - or breed our way, inversely, to a masochistic animal that delighted in what we would see as suffering.

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.

And if we change our animals as described in the previous paragraph?

If your sole argument is that of suffering, and experience thereof, then I don't' see why we couldn't accommodate that and alter the animals that we eat.

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.

Reciprocity ≠ Theory of Mind.

And I agree that it's simple. It's about lessening suffering in the world. But until such time, I have no problem slaughtering an animal that has lived a modest life, until I can purchase lab-grown meat or meat of animals that do not experience suffering.

Theory of Mind is very important to the question of suffering, because they don't have a concept of suffering without a mind to go with it, now do they? Again, you're anthropomorphizing human values of suffering and life experience unto animals who do not have the same experience as a human or even a concept of values or suffering.

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.

We are special. We're the only animal with a Theory of Mind.