First, you mentioned that use 5$ to bet a billion of dollars is just like gamble. Most people will not win in this game.
Im glad you mentioned this. I completely agree most people wont "win" this wager, for I believe most people (presuming god existed) would actually goto hell. Although I dont think thats what you meant, I dont think we can ascribe a probability to something like this, its beyond us as humans. we can say the lottery is a 1 in 10000 chance because of math but we cant use anything like that for the existence of god.
Moreover, human civilization already have many laws and moral criterions to judge or evaluate right or wrong things.
And id say most of these things seem to matchup with what the bible says, dont go insult for insult, do onto others what you'd want others to do onto you, etc. It really goes to show how the moral teachings of the bible are good.
You never mention that many things in the Bible are not proper to the educations in today. For example, the Bible says that human born with evil personality.
I dont think the bible says people are born with a "evil personality" we believe that everyone has or will sin, which is what I think you mean by "evil personality" correct me if im wrong.
Not to mention that different versions of Bible have contradict.
Well this debate isnt about evidence for or against a biblical god whether or not faith alone is a basis for believing in him(or a god in general). Although id be glad to hear them.
Second, wrong faith will demolish what we had built today. According to the statement in the last paragraph, some wrong values or wrong belief will be deemed by people.
Well I dont think it would "demolish" what we have today. Do note im not arguing people should believe in god because of faith (although I think to a degree they should but I dont think faith is the way) instead that "blind faith" is a fair basis for belief.
If someone builds a new religious system and conducts misleading on people. It is not right for people to believe things that is not explainable in scientific ways.
Well I believe there are many things that cant be proven by science or empirical evidence but are all reaction to accept. To list a few
Logical & mathematical truths, Science pre-supposes logic & math so to use science to prove the laws of logic would be arguing in a circle.
Metaphysical truths, Like there are other minds than my own or that the external world is real, or that the past was not created 5 mins ago with a appearance of age.
Aesthetic judgements, Cant be access by the scientific method because the beautiful cant be scientifically proven.
And finally science itself, Science cant be justified by the scientific method; science is permeated with unprovable assumptions. For example the special theory of relativity, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction between any 2 points A & B, but that strictly cannot be proven; we simply have to assume that in order to hold the theory
For instance, like dark matters, no one can prove that they exist so they call it hypothesis or concept. Scientists use model of universe to speculate the existent of dark matters. They didn't find the evidence and they won't say dark matter is true, so won't the faith of gods.
Well the existence of dark matter is munch different from that of a god but I see the point your making. From a scientific method of course they wouldn't say its true, thats the scientific method (although as i pointed out earlier some things are assumed) but the thing is people dont need to follow a scientific method to come to a belief. For example I could believe you if you said you were a man and looked like a man, I wouldn't need to run tests to see if you produced male levels of Testosterone. Although the scientific method would indicate we have to.
The apparently unrooted belief will slow down the development of technologies and societies on Earth.
Well I believe its rooted (although thats not what the debate is about) but its important to notice that Christians are often accredited to be responsible for science 
People in some places still keep women as an object or part of property. The form is a little bit like women is the slave of her owner(husband). Do you think they are right? They keep their belief without any evidence.
I obviously disagree with that, I dont think the world should base its laws around religions just because its true (although I think if there was clear evidence for god I believe we should). I think alot of religions like these also have contradictions. And I dont see how this is going against faith. Its attributing one thing to another that aren't connected
Much less that a plenty of people give up learning science because part of it conflict with their faith. It is the loss of our civilization due to the loss of potential "Einstein"(genius).
Well kinda similar to what I pointed out earlier, the earliest "fathers" of science were religious people. I think you also took the stance that science disagrees with the bible, I dont think that's correct. I would say science supports the bible. In the past say 600 years some of the strongest evidence for god has been discovered
The big bang
The universe is fine-tuned
The earth is some 5 billion years old
All of these in my view are strong evidence for the biblical god.