There's certainly nothing wrong with EQ. I always love to hear the arguments people make against it, usually centered around signal purity, phase distortion and other artifacts that they claim to be able to hear. The argument that always stymies them is that virtually all recorded music involves EQ in at least some stage of the signal path. It's funny how nobody claims to be able to hear it there1,2.
EQ is first and foremost a tool. The name implies its original intended function, which is to compensate for factors that interact with a signal during performance or recording (e.g. room reflections, generational loss, etc.). Additionally, it's used to sculpt portions of a mix so that they fit together better, or else to create interesting effects. Beyond that, it can be used client-side (e.g. room calibration), or, as many people use it, as a means of imparting a sonic flavor that they happen to like.
All of these are valid applications, and if you like the results, don't let anybody tell you different.
1 Though there is a minor niche for music that is recorded with bear mics and without any processing. This is more of a live performance thing, though.
2. I'm of course discounting the usual "studios have much better (read: expensive) equipment" cop out.