Why are you trying to tear down other people's faith?
When will you hear it?
This response will usually come late in a discussion, or as an interpolation in an existing discussion between atheists. It's less of a counter-apologetic and more of an attempt to derail the conversation to the motives an atheist may have for arguing against gods and religion. This response is a good sign that your interlocutor thinks your words could be damning to their faith, or the faith of others.
That need not be the goal of the atheist. Sometimes, explaining how we can live full, productive, happy lives without faith is enough to shake the faith of some. We can't really do anything about that, except stay silent, and that's certainly the option some would like us to take. To do so would present an egregious double standard. Christians do not shy away from explaining their faith for fear to damage the faith of a Jain, in fact they are encouraged to.
The salient point here is that most likely an atheist does not consider religious faith a benefit. In fact, it is the cornerstone of dogmatism, which is the source of most of the problems stemming from religion. Whether it is the immediate goal or not, people losing their faith in superstition is seen as a Good Thing.
A possible rebuttal
The theist might interject that people find great comfort in their faith. That may be true, however it is not always relevant. A drunk will find comfort in a bottle of whiskey and a drug addict in a syringe full of heroin, yet there are good reasons to help both these people to overcome these addictions. In fact, the original question can be easily paralleled to "Why are you such a buzzkill?" uttered by a drunk from whom you take the bottle away, and for much the same reasons. You could say that if faith can be broken through rational argument and evidence, then it was likely misplaced to begin with.
A Rebuttal to This Rebuttal
This argument, however, is flawed. If faith can be so easily broken through "rational argument and evidence" as you have argued, that implies that faith in and of itself is faulty because it can be disassembled with rational thought. Does this not put into question faith all together because expounding this argument one can conclude that all faith can be broken through rational argument.