user11259: One of my friend don't accept Buddhism theory of soullessness.She is also buddhist.So my question is how can I explain the soullessness to her? 

user111: Ask her to point out anything that qualifies as a soul. Then she will tell you something that comes under the 5 aggregates. Then you can teach her the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta

user295: Both soul exists and soul does not exist are extreme view:

Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?

Ananda Sutta
Simply there is nothing worthy of identifying as self, because you are not in control, whatever you identify as self are not entirely pleasant.

11259: <p>One of my friend don't accept Buddhism theory of soullessness.She is also buddhist.So my question is how can I explain the soullessness to her? </p>
 111: <p>Ask her to point out anything that qualifies as a soul. Then she will tell you something that comes under the <a href="http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/fiveAggregates.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">5 aggregates</a>. Then you can teach her the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Anatta-lakkhana Sutta</a></p>
 295: <p>Both soul exists and soul does not exist are extreme view:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans &amp; contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans &amp; contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ananda Sutta</a></p>

<p>Simply there is nothing worthy of identifying as self, because you are not in control, whatever you identify as self are not entirely pleasant.</p>
