Difference between Buddhist and materialist views of no self? This question follows from a discussion on the materialist, scientific reductionist understanding of no self, and was posted in a comment:


  In what way does the materialist view differ from Buddhism on the
  discussion of self?


Similarities

Both Buddhist and materialist/scientific-reductionist schools refute the notion of a self, an atman, an eternal, unchanging soul. Both schools understand the most obvious meaning of anatta:


  the lack of a permanent, unitary, and independent person.


Furhermore, Buddhism asserts that the body is constituted by way of material elements, and that a person is made up of the five aggregates. And similarly, a materialist, scientific reductionist understanding posits (quote):


  That people can be viewed as a composite of sub-atomic particles
  governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. We learn in elementary
  and middle school about caloric intake, cellular division (mitosis and
  meiosis), evolution, genetics and epigenetics which all make it
  trivial to ascertain that the person is thoroughly non-permanent,
  non-unitary, and dependent.


Differences?

It appears Wikipedia tells us that the difference between Buddhist and materialist views on no self lies in karma and rebirth:


  Buddha criticized the materialistic annihilationism view that denied
  rebirth and karma, states Damien Keown.[46] Such beliefs are
  inappropriate and dangerous, stated Buddha, because they encourage
  moral irresponsibility and material hedonism.[46] Anatta does not mean
  there is no afterlife, no rebirth or no fruition of karma, and
  Buddhism contrasts itself to annihilationist schools.


But I'm not sure whether this quote is accurate, or a misunderstanding

If Buddhist and materialist schools share the same view on the most obvious meaning of anatta (quoted above), 
then what distinguishes the Buddhist view from the materialist view on no self?
Is there a not-so-obvious meaning of anatta which materialist/scientific reductionist schools fail to understand?
Apart from what you have mentioned,  materialists usually think that the mind is a byproduct of the brain. In other words, electrical traces stored in neurons. This is not the case in Buddhism. Brain is a concept according to Buddhism. The reality is fundamentally grouped into 2 categories: the mental(Nama) and the physical(Rupa).  

The four noble truths hold true at all times regardless of what one believes. But one is not able to attain enlightenment, if one holds to the view that all mental activities end at death. This belief is called Saggawarana &amp; Maggawarana:  conceals the path to heavens and conceals the path to enlightenment.

Here's a related answer by ven.Yuttadhammo.