So far as I am aware, every faith has some form of end-times scenario that is fundamental to their worldview. Inasmuch as the promise of some sort of (presumably desirable) afterlife, (not to mention less desirable alternatives in the other direction), is the basis for every religion’s “authority,” belief in such an afterlife requires a de facto end to the current earthly existence.

Every variation of Judaism with which I am familiar–from the most reformed to the most orthodox–subscribes to some sort of end-times scenario, with the more fundamentalist sects subscribing to the related notion of rebuilding the third temple. That said, the details of the temple are hotly debated. Some believe it is up to mankind to recreate the temple and, in so doing, to proactively bring about the Messiah’s return. Others take the view that the temple will only be rebuilt when god himself decides to do it, and that, as a consequence, it is futile for man to believe he can facilitate the occurrence of these events.

As for the believer/nonbeliever issue, you are correct that there is potentially great difference between believing in religion per se, and believing in spirituality. I think, though, that in order to subscribe to any of these the more fundamental requirement is a capacity for believing in generally supernatural events, be they ghosts, miracles, resurrections, what have you. As a pretty hard-core rationalist, I cannot make myself accept the existence of any of these, which means that the afterlife must be dismissed as well.

I favor your definition of “nonbeliever.” It is the only one that is clear. You also have to make a distinction between a non believer in orgnized religion and “spirituality.” If you can call yourself spiritual people do not seem to mind so much.
People also like it if you are “searching.”
I peronally have ended my “searching” period.