Pointing them out is one thing. Labeling something a fallacy because one can't grasp the point is quite another. It becomes a conversation killing dodge.
Oh yes. I've already said it. It's a type of begging the question. By claiming God is in the category of make-believe along with these other mythical things, you get to avoid any justification for doing so. God is mythical because He's mythical, like these other mythical things.
More like: you think all these things are mythical, but the evidence for their reality is equal to the evidence for the reality of your deity. What's your justification for considering some of them mythical but one of them real? And does your justification avoid special pleading?
Surely you'd call me out if a believer did it the other way around? Here's how it would look:
Well, if you believe in wind, or sound, or atoms - all things you cannot see - then you have to believe in God too, since God is as real as all those other things, even though you can't see Him.
I hope you can see how foolish such an argument is standing alone.
But why is it foolish? It's foolish because there is other, compelling evidence for those things, compelling evidence which is not available for the God proposition.
Thankfully, another poster handled it much better, claiming that things which are not subject to scientific laws and worldview don't exist, even though people may at times believe they do.
I disagree that what you describe is 'handling it better'. It's a near certainty that some things not within our current scientific worldview actually exist. There's at least a chance that some scientific law doesn't work or apply exactly as we think it does. No one knows for sure what the heck was going on at T=0.
If you mean not a zealot and capable of critiquing my own point of view - ya got me pegged. I don't mind being a thoughtful atheist, I quite enjoy it.
I imagine smugness is a fuzzy, warm feeling. There are few occasions when a participant on a discussion forum can be described as a 'zealot' without a considerable amount of hyperbole being involved. Using it lightly doesn't seem like a characteristic of a genuinely thoughtful person.
If the rule is to brook no dissent and toe the party line, I think it's a bad rule.
There's no such rule. Surely you don't consider people presenting their own opinions in opposition to yours as amounting to 'brooking no dissent'? When you get banned for not being the right kind of atheist, your justification for saying something like that will be much less remote.
Did we at least decide that God isn't an extraordinary claim, but a mainstream claim?
I think you are using 'ordinary' in a different sense than are your interlocutors. Yes, it's ordinary in the sense of 'commonplace'. But it isn't ordinary in the sense of it not involving equally supported contradictory claims or not involving claims of existence without evidence.
It's not the popularity of a claim that makes it ordinary in the sense of being plausible. It's conformity to prior knowledge.
If I claim to have tied my shoelaces this morning, that is an ordinary claim. What makes it ordinary (or plausible) is our prior knowledge: we know there are such things as shoelaces, and that it is not unusual for people to have them and to tie them. Absent other prior knowledge that makes it more doubtful, such as knowing that I'm a quadropalegic, it's reasonable to take my word for my claim that I tied my shoes. In addition, there is little consequence for you to agree, it's no skin off your nose if it turns out that I'm lying, it's a stupid thing to lie about anyway.
But if I claim to have become completely invisible by drinking a formula I discovered in an old notebook, prior knowledge starts working against me. There would seem to be no way one could become invisible through drinking some compound or another, people who are fantasy-prone are likely to lie about such things, people who have certain mental illnesses are likely to be mistaken about such things, it could be the beginning of a con or practical joke (it would be funny if you believed me), and wouldn't securing definitive evidence that I succeeded in becoming invisible be my first order of business? It's not reasonable to take my word for this claim, you should be skeptical and require convincing and verified evidence that what I say is true before you believe it. And the consequence of believing me is that you have to throw our many things that are known to a high degree of certainty in order to accomodate my claim.
But belief in God can be reasonable in a different way, though still not rationally justified in a broad sense: if everyone around you for your whole life believes something (that bad fortune is caused by witches and good fortune by watchful ancestors, for instance) and takes for granted that it's true, it's natural for you to absorb that belief. It doesn't mean you're cognitively impaired or have psychological issues, it's normal for your community. That makes the belief common in your community, not ordinary in the sense that it is supported by prior knowledge. It is likely supported almost entirely by confirmation bias and personal relationships.
baaaaad 
