There's a different example on record in this thread, already, but it doesn't follow the model you describe. Indeed, while I see what you're getting at, the proxy God can emerge by much simpler phenomenon.
To the atheistic regard for logical inquiry and rational discourse, pretty much any assertion of God is nonsensical and illogical. In that context, the idea of God as determinism might seem an illogical exercise, but how is it illogical? To note the point of God existing usually suffices for atheist argumentation.
Sometimes, though, that is not actually what is going on. We have in this thread an example of an atheist requiring what God must be. What any given atheist needs God to be in order to validate one's own atheism is its own almost dangerously enchanting question.
To take, for instance, what some might refer to, approximately, as the Sky Daddy; this is a cynical and reactionary caricature, and is not without its reason, justification, and application. To the other, it is what it is, and this point becomes important in itself when an argument demands the cynical, reactionary caricature become something more.
In this case, we do not necessarily have a specific iteration of God at hand according to a rejection thereof, but, rather, a limitation of what God is allowed to be. Indeed, the functional purpose of doing so is to contain God within the range of the atheist's doctrinal argument.
That is, another's consideration of God is rejected in favor of the atheist's God.
As a more general phenomenon, it comes up repeatedly in evangelical atheism.
In the context of a basic fallacy, it's perfectly human behavior; we tend to assert our judgment over history according to moral aesthetics contemporary to our priority. This works well enough as a comparative question undertaken rationally, but as defining presupposition it is fallacious. Who the hell is going to go up to that white supremacist shooter who needed Burger King after massacring worshippers that he needs to have darker skin in order to be a proper villain? Given the stakes involved in fretting or raging about religious politics, the difference between dealing with the problem in front of them and requiring others abide a different critique in order to validate it ought to stand out as a billowing flag of fallacy.
The more particular point being that when an atheist requires a particular iteration of God that fits their argument against, the atheist requires their own God.
It's a little bit different than what you're after, but the determinism discussion is about as big as the Universe itself.
