Sincere belief in Leprechauns is equally rational to sincere belief in Gods.

Your very first sentence of Round 2 ("To compare the belief in God/s to that of leprechauns by asserting that they are both equal simply because of the word belief is false.") makes it abundantly clear that you have either misunderstood the argument, or you are intentionally avoiding addressing it. I laid out my argument and reasoning as to what makes a belief in God/s and a belief in Leprechauns identically rational. 1. Both beliefs cannot be confirmed with empirical evidence and therefore must be taken on faith. 2. Both claims of the existence of God/s and Leprechauns are unfalsifiable and therefore equally plausible. Twice now, you have failed to counter either of these premises. Instead, you provide examples as to how one belief affects the believer compared to the other - this is irrelevant. You've provided anecdotal and circumstantial evidence trying to pass it off as empirical - this is intellectually dishonest. Again, I'll try to address some things you brought up: "a logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning,where is my flaw in reasoning?" Here are some of the logical fallacies you've used - 1. "leprechauns and other cultural mythical and frankly other made up figures that stem from superstition" - This is special pleading until you prove God/s is/are not also made up superstitions. 2. " No one Prays to leprechauns for help(generally) while since the dawn of man countless humans have turned to a Godhead figure." - This is an appeal to popularity and also irrelevant to the argument's tenets. 3. "more people on earth believe in God/s while most people acknowledge that leprechauns are as real as Santa" - Again, an appeal to popularity. 4. "the us dollar note states in God we trust not in Leprechauns we trust" - This is an appeal to authority. 5. "The moral lessons drawn from religious texts which we impulsively acknowledge" - False presupposition. I could go on, as this was just some of them from Round 1, not to mention nearly every other sentence is a non-sequitur, completely unrelated to my argument. You claim that because I dismiss these non-sequiturs, I am avoiding your counter-argument. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says absolutely NOTHING about whether or not God/s exists, only that matter moves from a state of order to disorder within a closed system. The planet earth is NOT a closed system, as the Sun is constantly showering it with more energy, by which matter can become ordered. At best, this law casts doubt on the evolutionary process, and in no way validates a belief in God the way holding your breath validates the human body's need to breathe. You said that one belief requires faith while the other one does not but you did not specify which one. I will assume that you don't think a belief in God requires faith but belief in Leprechauns does? This is absurd as faith is a tenet of every theology man has ever come up with. Like I said, if one shred of testable, repeatable evidence could be brought forward to support the existence of a God, or a Leprechaun, or a unicorn, or a fairy, or Bigfoot or any other supernatural thing, faith would no longer be requisite. However, as it is, no such evidence has ever been brought forward. Thus, beliefs in Gods and Leprechauns are supported equally by faith alone.