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. Such beliefs are > inappropriate and dangerous, stated Buddha, because they encourage > moral irresponsibility and material hedonism. 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?