Ragnarok is not exactly meant to be THE END but rather an end. Specifically an end to a "cycle" of sorts. After the whole thing is done some humans and some of the Aesir and Vanir are supposed to survive for a new beginning. At least that's how it goes in the Eddaic literature any way. Now depending on what particular scholar you read or what theory you consider the most likely Ragnarok is supposed to be either possible evidence for a cyclical sense of time amongst the Viking Age Norse. A propaganda piece by Snorri Sturlsson that was cobbled together from half-remembered pieces of older myths in order make it look like the coming of Christianity was inevitable, or that it reflects what the Viking Age Norse actually believed. Now personally I think that there is truth in the first two.
A. The Viking Age Norse despite being renowned for their sea-faring skills were for the most part farmers. A cyclical view of time in some form or another is certainly not unknown amongst many pre-industrial mostly agricultural societies. So this being true is not unlikely.
B. Depending on what translation you read you some times see a few lines about the "Lord of All descending upon the world to rule" or something like that. I mean come on that is pretty obvious evidence right there.
Did the Viking Age Norse actually believe in Ragnarok ? What we call Ragnarok, probably not. Despite the stories that have come down to us through the ages many experts see Viking Age Religious Practices and Beliefs as varying a great deal. Also the number of "Major Gods" seems to have been smaller. The Gods that are consistently found are Odin, Frigg, Freyr, Freya, Tyr, Njordr, Baldr, Ullr, and Thor.
There is also evidence that there were plenty of "smaller" more local and regional Gods and various land spirits. These Gods and Spirits are probably what an individual would wave petitioned for aid, possibly along with some sort of ancestor veneration. The "Major Gods" were something you addressed as a community, usually through your Chieftain, Elder(s) or some other communal leader.
Lastly, while this has been said before I think it should be stated here that Myths don't necessarily have to be regarded as literally true even by the cultures from which those Myths might originate. Especially when said society was not big on written records. Oral cultures use Myth and Story-telling as educational tools in ways that people like us coming from heavily literate societies might not be able to appreciate or understand very easily. Yes the Norse did have Runes but those were mostly used to carve out short messages on either wood or stone. So for whatever reason you may want to make fun of them please realize that your own assumptions may be more indicative of your upbringing in modern America than about how those people actually interpreted their myths.
= new reply since forum marked as read
