While I agree that you will die, the rest is claptrap. There's nothing religious about the singularity.
We are most definitely not hard wired for religion. It's a mythology that preceded the scientific era. In a thousand years or less it will be laughed off like the talking donkey nonsense. We're not hard wired at all...
We're not hardwired for something as abstract as religion, but we do have a lot of cognitive heuristics and biases that while they may have had uses in the ancestral environment (and indeed some today), nevertheless make errors in reasoning such as religion (and homeopathy, judging risks and probabilities, reducing fractions, etc.) quite easy for even the most intelligent of us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
I agree there's little that's religious about the Singularity itself or most Singularitarians (http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/steven/?p=21), and the above poster is probably mislead about it. (I suspect he's mislead because he brought up the 2045 date and because he's confused about identity. That date I believe is only professed strongly by Kurzweil in the public mediasphere, who is at most with respect to the Singularity a predictor with some past successes and equipped with a strong argument based on accelerated returns, but he isn't working directly toward a positive (or negative) Singularity while those who are that I'm aware of hesitate to estimate date ranges.) Personally I think barring mass human extinction the stage is set for a Singularity event within this century, and I do have many justifications for it, not a religious "I have faith and faith is good" 'justification' or an apologetic one trying to extract justification by means of some shaky philosophy and an a priori sacred book (Singularity is Near? Never read it) containing no significant errors.
I see the Singularity as an apocalyptic prophecy, textbook millenarianism [1] that takes much inspiration from old-school Marxism. Like the latter, it presents itself as economic and scientific because it has big-sounding concepts like Law of Accelerating Returns [2] / Law of Accelerating Misery; both seem well reasoned, are slick, intelligent, and easy for smart people to believe in.
Now, Marx couldn't think of politics as independent from the interests of the capitalist class. That's why he failed, as Popper described: the New Deal, Social Security, public and subsidized education, progressive taxation... all those things came and made his prophecy fail. As in hindsight was to be expected, if only because prophecies rarely become true.
Today, Kurzweil can't think of biology as the vast, incredibly complex area that it is, and so his prophecy will fail when it's clear how difficult it is to achieve immortality, or full cybernetisation of the human mind, or general AI, or whatever. I am 90% confident in that outcome.
Yeah, we are not hard wired for religion, but still it's very easy to fall for it. Scientific reasoning is not and probably never will be the norm, if simply for the fact that we're just poor dumb chimps. After all, religion didn't stop appearing after 1900. The Scientologists are proof of that.
[2] LOAR forgets how Moore's law, for example, was very specific and probably short-term. If Kurzweil had been born in the 19th century, he would have probably been talking about the coming Steam Engine Singularity. In the 60s, he'd be talking about scientific bases on Mars by 2000...
Do you have any links to peer-reviewed journal articles that conclude beyond any possible doubt that we're not hard-wired in any way for religion? If not, do you believe it simply because it's a comforting assertion that fits in well with your world view? And isn't believing something without evidence simply because it's comforting rather...religious?
We are most definitely not hard wired for religion. It's a mythology that preceded the scientific era. In a thousand years or less it will be laughed off like the talking donkey nonsense. We're not hard wired at all...