If someone believes a certain set of ideas and/or principles is true, is it true this person will had to have had some 'real' (empirical, 'non-a-priori-established') evidence of some information in their past that at least tries to 'back-up' the set of ideas believed in?
The person would had to have experienced something outside their 'mentality' or points of view that they take as 'outside' justification for this set of ideas they later believe in. Even if the 'outside' real event is misinterpreted and the resulting mistaken conclusions are taken as justification, the belief set of ideas has to have some real event 'backing it up'.
One can not develop a set of beliefs that have no real events in the past that putatively back it up, even if wrongly. (This would be like an a priori 'established' set of ideas believed to be true yet many philosophers seem to be against the idea of a priori information.) So, is it true could one have a set of beliefs with no real empirical evidence (not even misinterpreted evidence) to back it up?