Where are you buying the legendary edition?

That’s racist.
Also considering how both Ashley and Suvi talk about faith, it seems very much in the minority so there is probably very much a debate about whether organics have souls with the majority thinking no.

I hardly think it's racist because unlike organics, synthetics could care less if I had a prejudice or hesitation against them because they don't feel. 

I think the more appropriate term is roboskepticism. 

No thanks. I’m fine with the ending I have.
Meanwhile BioWare has proven untrustworthy to me when it comes to making things canon. They’ve already ruined Revan (and Exile), Hawke, will ruin Inquisitor, so don’t need Shepard and their trilogy added to the list.

There’s nothing in Synthesis that is rape. To say that is an insult to those who actually suffered sexual assault.

I get it from the fact that there are only two religious humans in the series, and both explain how they have to defend their beliefs because most people don’t think that way anymore. Shouldn’t be that surprising, since the real world is becoming more and more secular.

jrpN7 Fine, but why ignore the other part of my post again?

Because I never was able to establish the point you were trying to make. Secularism does not mean people lose their souls.  Nor does it mean non-religious people believe people don't have souls. That's so absurd I chose to sidestep it altogether.  

You're saying majority secularism in humanity means people are debating whether or not humanity has souls. Yes? 

Again, that's absurd. I'm agnostic/secular as are most of my friends. Never once have we thought humans were soulless. But thanks for sharing such a bizarre and complexing concept. Super fun, but I'm done here. 

Or AI Shep had them rain down red, blue and green cupcakes. 😆

What's a "soul"?

An uninterrupted emotional experience of the world between birth and death, I would guess, if we're talking about it in secular terms. Whatever it is that allows you to consciously feel like an autonomous living entity in spite of just being a bag of meat and bone and electrons following a perfect trajectory determined all the way back at the Big Bang. An experience that objects like pencils and laptops presumably don't share.

I definitely think it's worth debating. We have some reason to assume that other humans have them too, and to a much lesser extent animal life, because we each individually (hopefully) know that we have one and they're somewhat related to us. Computer programming, however complicated? Not so much. It's hypothetically possible that a sufficiently powerful AI or whatever weird hybrid Synthesis results in is alive in some sense, if not exactly the same as we are, but unlike with other human beings I see no reason for us to actually give them that benefit of the doubt or grant them concessions because of it.

And to me, the human species' absolute most sacred tradition is telling, thinking about and absorbing stories, and gleaning whatever small lessons and perspectives we can from them to add to our own understanding of the world, ourselves and of other people, whether or not they're specifically intended by the author or relevant to something in front of us right this minute.

In my mind, saying that it's a big waste of time to just think through the implications of something that happens in any given story is the same as saying "You know what? I think I'm smart and wise enough to start letting my brain run on autopilot from now on. You dummies just keep on exploring ideas and accumulating information and all that garbage. I'm good."

And I wish people wouldn't always use rape of all things either as a loaded stand-in for 'violation' or as an emotional tool to browbeat each other and present themselves as more righteous or sensitive in a completely hypothetical discussion. I think it's perfectly fair to say that choosing Synthesis would be a violation of humanity without their consent, just as it's fair to say that Shepard really isn't in a position to take human rights into consideration when forced to make the choice.

Having your property destroyed and being stranded in space and on hundreds of different planets without the support necessary to survive, or being "protected" by all-powerful robot gods with their own ideas about what we shouldn't be allowed to as civilizations in perpetuity would all be pretty violating too in my opinion.

Forcing your will onto someone's body without their consent and altering or taking away their dignity or identity so to speak... What would you call it? Synthesis feels like galaxy wide rape to me.

Honestly though you already crossed lines fairly quickly by calling someone a racist and then a bigot back to back for choosing destroy all the while suggesting what secular people think about souls. The debate on that is not whether we're soulless but what happens to these souls after death. ME had commentary on whether synthetics had souls. Never organics. It's up to the player to make a personal decision on whether synthetics do or don't. After doing Legion's quests, I of course felt like they could have souls. But in the end, I also still chose destroy. Not about to have you call me a racist and bigot over that either.  

I have lost my filter long ago, and call it like I see it. Even if it is a video game scenario, I see no difference and was absolutely devastated after choosing it on my first play. I didn't know why then, but I went into a significant depression for a couple months and didn't play the game at all. It took a while to digest, and then I understood. I chose in weakness what seemed best for others, and forgot about myself. This is actually clinical, if you understand Stockholm syndrome.

The ending is an riddle, IMO. Only you can answer it, but the implications of Control and Synthesis to me are obvious Devil's Advocate ruses. I loathe the loss of the Geth and EDI, but I will not make grand decisions for people's personal physical beings which any option other than Destroy makes room for.