Why Am I Explaining Myself?

I was reading the comments on a recent post by Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist, when I found myself in a rather interesting exchange with a creationist.
In keeping with the Ken Ham/creationist theme, other commenters talked of ribs, bacculums (penis bones, which animals have and humans don't, and which some people believe was Adam's actual "rib"), and the creation story. This talk of penises reminded me of something:

A.J.
 "I've always wondered, if God only wanted to make Eve because Adam was lonely, why did he have a penis? And if he didn't, how did they have babies? And why do men have them, if they could have babies some other way?"
I was answered with this, by a person who, for privacy's sake, I will refer to as Creationist Lady (C.L.):
C.L.
 "Of course he had a penis, and how else do you think men would have a baby?"

 (I will quote some of her comments here, as well as my own, though for the sake of brevity and relevance, not all of them, and for those same reasons I'm afraid I cannot include a lot of context.)

C.L. (to someone else, who asked about, er, "heavenly bliss")
 "There will be no need for sex in Heaven."
A.J.
 "Will there be other activities that are just as pleasurable? Will we have a Praise-gasm? (I'm semi-serious here, as to your thoughts)."
C.L.
 "The Bible is silent on that matter."

 Someone asked if Adam and Eve had belly buttons. Creationist Lady had the answer:

C.L.
 "I don't believe that Adam or Eve either one had a belly button, why would they need one?...I don't know why it is so difficult for you all to fail to believe there is a real God. You believe in science and it is just the study of what is, likewise faith is also a journey into the realm of what is, what was, and what is to come, Is that so hard? You get excited at what science comes up with, but why do you not get just as excited with what the anthropologist comes up with concerning the diff. civilizations they are continually coming up with, or the many items that prove the bible is true, including, but not limited to the Dead Sea Scrolls?"
 A.J.
 "I can't speak for anyone else, but after praying and trying to get close to God for many years, I began to doubt that there was anyone there at all. When you talk about faith or the bible, I have doubts about them, because I think that, just from my own evidence and experience, there's likely nothing there. Hope that answers your question."
C.L.
 "I am very sorry that your efforts failed, I wish I had an answer for you, but I don't, but God is real, and maybe one day you will know of a surety that He is."
C.L.
 "I can't say anything about anyone else's experience but my own, but I believe with all my heart that if you seek God with a pure heart, meaning without guile and without doubt, you will surely find God. I wish you the very best and I will be praying for you."
A.J.
 "Thank you. Thanks for your patience with all of my questions too. I found your responses pretty interesting. About God, I do know two things: That I was sincere, and that if there is a God, and he/she is good, that I won't die without knowing the truth. I know you were getting mocked tonight, but I hope you know I was trying to be friendly. :)"
C.L.
 "Thank you so very much for your comment and for your being friendly (like the blog says). God judges the intents of the heart, and I am sure that your sincerity will get you where you want to go, God Bless and see you on the other side. :)"

This exchange, though, made me wonder: Why did I have to explain myself? Over and over again in my discussions with theists, I find myself using the same line, "I know I was sincere, and I trust that God wouldn't let me die without knowing the truth." They always seem to respond to that positively, and yet, I still feel I have to say it in order to be understood. In other words, the default assumption seems to be something different.
Why did this person quoted above not give the atheists who disagreed with her the benefit of the doubt, or at least those who didn't say things like, "Lady, get your ignorant ass back in school" (a real comment she received)? She was very friendly to me towards the end, which I loved, but she also called those who mocked her liars, fools, Marxists, and socialists (though they may have deserved to be told off, I'm not sure that this is the most accurate or productive way to do it). Why, on a blog called The Friendly Atheist, were we all (according to her) mocking God and trying to deceive people?

C.L. (not specifically to me):
 "All of you mocking God, and trying to deceive people, by all your lies and propaganda"
  It is rather discouraging to me to feel as if I am not given the benefit of the doubt.
I want to find common ground with theists as much as possible, except in cases where their bigotry, condescension or intolerance becomes so much that I just want to avoid them. But I still feel as though I shouldn't have to explain that my intentions are good, or that I don't hate God or them.
 There are many theists who have been more than friendly to me, but there are just enough of this kind to occasionally discourage me. I am beginning to think that I should stop trying to explain myself to these people.

What do you think of this? Leave a comment below, or send me an email at: atheistjourneysblog@gmail.com
Follow or tweet me here: https://twitter.com/atheistjourneys