Citation for what? We can't be sure of what was going on in the heads of the Singularitarians when they came up with these ideas, but it seems obvious that people like Kurzweil, Hanson, Bostrom, Yudkowsky, etc., were quite familiar with Christian millenarianism and scifi tropes.

If that's all you've got, then you totally made the idea up. Why would a bunch of atheists be positively inclined towards a story that resembled something they rejected more or less directly?

Well, those who died...pardon..."deanimated" without signing up for cryonics are out of luck, robot Jesus will not rise them from their icy graves.

This is still really really different.

A) Only a tiny fraction of people who expect a singularity are into cryo. It's not the same belief.

B) Even if there is no singularity at all, cryo could pay off. They're separate things causally as well. You don't need a Robot Jesus to reanimate or upload someone, just amazingly awesome medical technology.

C) Everyone still alive at the time experiences the consequences, good or bad, so that's kind of moot if the singularity is to be expected any time vaguely soon. Outside of the basilisk, whether you brought it about or not doesn't have an impact - and taking the basilisk seriously would make one an extreme outlier.

D) If it turns out that existing cryo tech doesn't work, then the people who did sign up are SOL too, as is anyone who did sign up for cryo but didn't get frozen for whatever reason. These are very real risks taken seriously by almost everyone who does support cryo.

E) The only moral judgement here is on people who don't let others be frozen... and see C. There's no element of karma here, no justice. Just, do 'the smart thing' or don't (FYI, I am not signed up for cryo).

allow different outcomes for different people, see Hanson's Malthusian EM society for instance.

that looks like the same outcome for everyone to me. The 'survivors' are ground down to pure economics by Moloch. Plus, you seem to be overinterpreting my 'same outcome' statement. Outcome of the singularity, not personal outcome.

Yudkowsky's CEV-FAI is (was?) supposed to impose a global morality based on some sort of "extrapolated" average of people's moralities. Some people may not like it.

Whoa there. It would itself act in accordance with said morality. If said morality is pluralistic, which seems very likely considering that it's built on two layers of indirection, then it does not end up imposing a global morality on anyone else.

Anyway, Singularitarianism is not Christianity, so if you look at a sufficient level of detail you can certainly find some differences. But it seems clear to me that they are related.

I didn't exactly have to probe deeply, and considering that the philosophical effect of the belief is diametrically opposite, I certainly don't think I went too deeply. It feels shoehorned in to me.