...
I wouldn't say that. It's wrong.
Believing in something without good reason is idiotic; believing in something without evidence is not necessarily idiotic.
Clarifying, believing in something empirical without evidence is idiotic. Believing in something non-empirical without evidence is perfectly permissible so long as you have a good, logical reason to do so. Why? Because 1) non-empirical things self-apparently exist, and 2) axiomatically, there cannot be empirical evidence for non-empirical things.
And, let me point out, that any proponent of science who states that it is idiotic to believe in something without evidence is a hypocrite, for the scientific method itself has purely non-empirical roots.