People frequently want to discuss discrete topics and extrapolate agreement about that particular topic to assume that you agree with the underlying philosophy of the person or group espousing that topic.
That's probably not very clear so let me start with an analogy.
Before we had GPS, navigators used a sextant, almanac (book of tables of info), and chronometer (watch) to determine their position on the surface of the Earth. And we're talking about naval and aviation navigators well into the 1960s using the sextant as a primary navigational device.
Way back in those dim days I took a class in celestial navigation and learned how to use a sextant. Like the navigators who had gone before me, I believed in and trusted the results obtained from that process.
So if someone were to ask me if I believe in the efficacy of the sextant, I would agree wholeheartedly. The sextant is a useful and accurate navigational tool. I'm with ya on that one, pal.
If that person were then to ask me if I believe in a geocentric universe, I would vehemently disagree. What amazes me is that the geocentric-universe crowd is amazed by my dismissal of their underlying belief. They say, "But you believe in the sextant just like we do. Celestial navigation was developed from the context of a geocentric universe. Therefore, if you believe in that, you surely must agree with us that we live in a geocentric universe."
And their basic facts are essentially correct. The sextant and its use as a navigation tool has its roots and function in the discredited geocentric view of the universe. But their logic is obviously flawed. This is a case of convergent evolution of philosophies. Birds and bats both have wings and fly but they do not come from a common ancestor. They are an example of convergent evolution. They come from completely different roots.
In the same vein, geocentric believers and I both come to a belief in the efficacy of celestial navigation but we do not arrive there from a common history or root. We simply happen to intersect there, having arrived from radically different, even opposing, basic philosophies.
Therefore, although I might agree completely with the geocentric-universe crowd about one or more specific, even significant, concepts, I am in utter, absolute, and violent disagreement with their underlying philosophy.
So if I agree with you about X, or Y, or Z, or even if I agree with you about all of them, please don't assume that I agree with the core philosophy that brought you to X, Y, and Z. I may have gotten there from a completely different path and it's even possible that, although we agree about X, Y, Z, or more, I find your core philosophy unattractive or even repugnant.