Christians will be faced with simple dilemma: either continue to trust a number of amazing relics (such as the shroud or seamless robe) or start believing in a new contraption and the so-called evidence it provides. I don’t see how the future society cannot be increasingly motivated by cultural tribalism.
Not being religious is a defect?
Given the large number of Christians who reject the evidence that there was no flood and that the Earth is old today, I’d guess that they would make up excuses. The time machine sent the travelers to another time line. God is hiding to make sure they have faith.
Even if everyone responded to the evidence rationally, there would still be deists.
Isn’t that one of the basic features of a communist society? Yes, there were religious sects in Soviet Russia, but I’m pretty sure that ‘lack of religion’ was the dominant culture.
I think you have it slightly off: the innate human quality is to wonder and contemplate; religion is one result of that thinking, but so is science, art, and invention.
In addition to the fact that are lots of people who are religious who are members of religions other than those of the People of the Book: there are plenty of people who are faithful Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, who take large portions of that Book to be allegorical.
If I remove the snark from that: yes. It’s very important for many people to believe that in some sense they, and their loved ones, aren’t going to die. It’s very important for many people to believe that there is some sense of justice in the universe; though not necessarily one that involves hellfire. For people who need either part of this in order to keep functioning, disproving a specific event will either have no effect, or seriously screw them up. Disbelieving in the time machine would most likely be the easiest way out of this for such people. [ETA: the ones who would otherwise be screwed up; not the ones who will just say ‘that particular account must be an allegory, or have happened somewhere else, or at some other time’.]
And if believing that justice inheres in the universe, not just in social species, makes it possible for the human species to try to get closer to it: I’m not going to complain. (Except, of course, when people’s religion causes them to try to work, IMO, against justice. That I will complain about.) Or if believing that there’ll be a reunion with loved ones after death makes it possible for some people to get up in the morning and take care of, say, their remaining kids: sometimes you’ve got to do what gives you the strength to keep going.
I suspect the society that survives will be the one made up of the huge numbers of people somewhere in the middle; plus the people who were mostly on one end or the other, but who insisted on continuing to talk with everybody else.
Most people are pretty flexible on whether certain things from the Bible are literal or metaphorical. I don’t think that would work on any religious person that didn’t take the Bible 100% literally. Sure, you could maybe convince a young-earther of some stuff, but that’s it.
By problem I mean’t from the standpoint of your either/or argument.
I’m having trouble understanding your meaning. Taking Christianity, isn’t an omnipotent (supernatural) God the driving force? Describe a what a religion would look like without a supernatural aspect (and by that I mean a religion someone would actually follow). Or better yet, point to any major religion that doesn’t contain an aspect of that. Without miracles what motivation is there to believe?
I’m a non-practicing Catholic, if there is such a thing, and I’ve had many a heart-to-heart where another Catholic would say things like “OK, I don’t believe it’s LITERALLY the body and blood of Christ” or even “OK, the virgin birth isn’t likely true, but the important part is the message”
How would a time machine prove or disprove the existence of God? I knew someone who was a Deist and didn’t believe in any miracles, but still believed in God. He later became a Christian, but believed in God before that.
Regards,
Shodan
Even if you could go back all the way to the Big Bang, many religious people would say “God did that”.
But how could a time machine “kill” that? The best that your proposed time machine could do would be to establish that a particular miracle did not happen, not that miracles in general have never happened, let alone that a supernatural God doesn’t exist.
You also gotta remember that much of the Bible was written well after the events depicted take place. Even if you believe that Moses was a real guy, nobody thinks he personally witnessed the Adam and Eve story, the Flood, etc. So, he’d probably get some slack for getting some of the details wrong.
I think you’re missing the point. Sure, showing that some of the stories didn’t happen won’t change very many minds. But most religions have critical events. Show Jesus was actually born in Nazareth. Monitor his body and show he never rose. Show Joseph Smith composing the Book of Mormon while chuckling about the suckers. That’s the kind of thing which will hurt non-deistic religions.
I’m rostered laity and a worship leader in the ELCA. As such I believe everything in the Bible and feel that two or three of the things probably happened. 
. In other words I’m not one of those unerring-word types.
Considering science has already showed at least a foundation for some of the things in the Bible, what could a time machine change? That the Great Flood didn’t happen? I’m not real worried if it did or not and neither is our denomination. Watch Moses not part the Reed Sea? Nope – don’t bother me much at all. Prove that Jesus never existed? Going by what science and written history currently has I don’t think you could do it but I have a feeling even if you did we would still have about the same number of heads in the pews Sunday morning. It could fade faster than it already is afterwards but I don’t see it as a deal-breaker.
So in short I don’t think it would kill religion. It would change it but people of faith will always seek a faith; no matter what name or form we give to it. And if worse comes to worse we could always become atheists; or as we like to call it “faith lite”. 
If it’s proven they didn’t happen, then, they didn’t happen.
But the belief is that Scripture is divinely inspired - in other words, Moses wasn’t just writing it because of hearsay to hearsay to hearsay (in which case, like a game of telephone, the facts can be distorted worse and worse with each retelling) - he was writing it with specially given knowledge.
There is a mountain of evidence that Joseph Smith is a fraud; you don’t need a time machine to prove that to a person with an open mind. I know, I’m one of them. The key is the open mind, not the proof.
If you aren’t open to changing your mind, NO evidence to the contrary will work.
There may be people that believe that, but that’s not based off anything in the actual Bible. Nowhere does it say that god dictated the 5 books to Moses or that he wrote it down from a vision or anything like that. At least, no where that I’ve seen.
So the entire basis of this thread is your misunderstanding of religion.
I think I’ve encountered more nonreligious biblical literalists like the OP than actual religious biblical literalists on these boards.
In all honesty, if you could build and demonstrate a working time machine, the structure of established scientific theoretical concepts would take a bigger hit than those of religion.