What is the final destination — for each person, and for humanity as a whole?

For each person, Paradise or Hell. For history, an appointed end: the Mahdi, the false messiah, the return of Jesus to confirm the message, then the Hour.

For each person, death. For humanity, eventual extinction as the sun dies and the universe runs down — Russell faced this squarely and argued that meaning is not lost, because meaning never came from the cosmos in the first place.

For the person: unknown — death may be an end or a door, and the agnostic will not pretend to see through it. For humanity: whatever science projects and human choices make; agnosticism has no eschatology to offer.

For creation: a renewed heavens and earth where God dwells with humanity and 'death shall be no more' (Revelation 21:4). For each person: eternal life with God, or final separation from him — hell, which the mainstream holds to be real while Christians debate its nature: unending punishment, destruction, or (a minority hope) finally empty.

For each person: judgment and the world to come. For humanity: a repaired world — the messianic age when war ends, exiles return, and 'the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD'; Orthodoxy awaits a personal Messiah, while Reform speaks of a messianic era built with human hands under God.

For each being, nirvana is the final destination — though reaching it may take countless lives. For humanity as a whole there is no promised end-state: world-cycles continue without a final act, though the Mahayana teaches that every being carries the capacity to awaken and, on many readings, eventually will.

For each soul, eventually, moksha — most schools hold that over endless births every soul will finally be freed (Madhva's Dvaita is the rare dissent, teaching that some souls never are). For humanity as a whole there is no final curtain: cosmic history moves in cycles without a last day.

For each person: continued wandering through births, or final merging into the One. For humanity as a whole the scripture writes no end-times script — worlds arise and dissolve at God's command, and the Sikh's task is faithful living, not waiting for a finale.

For the individual it names no destination. For societies its hoped-for end is political: a stable pluralist peace in which no one's citizenship ever depends on anyone's creed.

For each person, death; for humanity, no fixed destiny — an open future that humans will make better or worse. Some humanists, following Russell, add that even a universe that ends does not erase the worth of the lives lived in it.

No doctrine of a final destination for persons; for humanity, early liberals hoped history moved toward freedom and peace. After the twentieth century most state that hope carefully — Fukuyama's 'end of history' thesis (1992) was argued by one scholar and disputed by many, never adopted as creed.

No final destination is taught. The goal is historical and this-worldly — societies of equal citizens — and, for each person, a life whose shape was chosen rather than assigned.

For the individual it names no final destination — that is left to religion. For humanity, Mazzini hoped for a fraternity of free nations at peace, each with its own mission; others, like Hazony, expect a permanent plurality of nations rather than any final unity.