I had the discussion with my friend, and here is her experience:
Her ex-boyfriend used the ouija board and claims that a demon told him it would follow him through electricity. He claims that when he had a thought that the demon was bad, a light bulb exploded on its own. When my friend started dating him, she claims to have experienced supernatural phenomena with him. She claims they were driving down the highway and the streetlamps would dim as they passed them. She said she saw the dashboard lights flicker in the car and once the car almost went out of control because something was going haywire in the electrical system. Once they were sitting in his room and his computer music sequencer started playing something he had not written. She also said she observed something take control of his personality, and it would control her too.
After having these experiences and eventually a rough breakup with her boyfriend, a JW friend of hers started reading the Bible to her. She felt that what the JW was saying the Bible says about demons matched her experience. She continued her indoctrination with the JW's and has been a JW for about 8 years.
After I listened to her experiences, I said that although I cannot discount her personal experience, can she provide any reason why I should believe her general statement that "the world is run by demons?" She said, "I cannot make you believe in demons, nor do I want to try to make you. I can only tell you my personal experience." I said, "but you claimed that the world is run by demons. I'm not asking you to make me believe in demons. I'm asking why a rational person should believe the claim that the world is run by them." She then questioned what I mean by "rational," and then she accused me of being religious and dogmatic as if my "god" is some sort of universal rationality. I said I didn't realize she was going to make me have to define what I mean by rational. I said I could email her some information on logic, but she said she was not interested anyway. Instead, she started asking me questions like how could Hitler come to power, etc.
Toward the end of the conversation, she said we should just agree to disagree meaning that she bases her thinking on the "spiritual" and "the Bible," whereas I base my thinking on "logic" and "rationality." She was actually being very controlling and forcing that dichotomy. I said, "are you saying you are ok with believing things that violate ..." she interrupted me before I could say "rationality," and interjected "I will not be intimidated by you!" I was like "whoah, where is this coming from?" She then said, "I will not be forced to think according to your rules." I ended it by saying I will accept her suggestion that we "agree to disagree," but she can't expect it to not impact how I interact with her. I can sit down and have a conversation with someone who is willing to agree to certain definitions of words and abide by logic. However, if someone is going to abandon logic, I need to know they are abandoning it and adjust how I interact with them. I said I would make that adjustment with her. Basically, I don't think we will ever have a rational discussion, i.e. we're done.
