Atheists: if the earth moves, wouldn't keeping an object over it make it fall in a completely different place?

This is a very poorly worded question, so I am struggling to understand your point.

"if the earth moves, wouldn't keeping an object over it make it fall in a completely different place?"

No. The object and the atmosphere through which it falls move with the earth.

"Also if you are for example stay in An stationary object above an you dangle down a straight object, anchor or weld that to a pole on the ground. Wouldn't that thing bend and eventually break as the earth moves."

It depends on what you mean by 'stationary'. Stationary relative to what? We usually mean relative to the earth, in which case there would not be a problem. If you mean stationary relative to the sun, then, yes, the object would break, but it is hardly a feasible scenario.

"What if that person in that object above the ground shifts in the opposite direction as the atmosphere at the same rate?"

Well, if they are moving relative to the earth then that movement will have to be taken into account whether the earth is still or moving.

Wow - there's just so much wrong with this question I don't know where t begin. Let's demolish the idea of "keeping an object over it" as posed in the lead in. How does the object get there and stay "over the earth"? Getting an object off the ground requires energy, keeping it off the ground requires more. Or are you saying gravity doesn't work either. So let's say you can get a helicopter with a lot of fuel and you hover initially above one spot. Neglecting air currents, the helicopter will eventually appear to drift to the east - that is due to the earth rotating out from under it. You would have to wait a fair amount of time to notice this, and of course, in real life you have winds to contend with so this is a difficult experiment to do.

But, you can observer the fact the earth rotates by using DirectTV or the Dish. Both these services send tv signals to satellites in geosynchronous orbits (my, that's a big word for a fundamentalist - it means an orbit around the earth's equator that has the same period (time to complete one orbit) as the time it takes the earth to make one full revolution) which send the signals to your home. The geosynchronous orbit make the satellite appear to hover over one point on the earth - in reality it is moving with the same angular speed as that point. If the earth doesn't rotate, you can't have a satellite that is stationary relative to the ground - the physics of gravity and motion won't allow it (Not sure you can handle the 9th grade algebra needed to show this so I won't do the math here). So if the earth is stationary, how can you have DirectTV? If you want to play the earth is flat card (wouldn't surprise me - ignorance is bliss and there are a lot of happy people out there), then you have an even harder time explaining how you get a satellite to appear motionless relative to a point on the earth (we won't go into explaining sunset and sunrise).

Basically, for your point to have any chance, we need to toss out 400 years of physics and astronomy - all of which is experimentally tested an verified. Not likely - better you should go to a real school and learn something. Or remain happy, whatever.

First: If you keep an object over the earth (moving or not) means that, by definition, it WON'T fall.

Second: You are using the terms "Stationary" and "moves/moving". But you are leaving out relativity.

Stationary relative to the earth's position in the solar system?

Stationary relative to a point on the earth (geosynchronous orbit)?

Stationary relative to the sun (which is moving in the galaxy)?

Stationary relative to a point in space?

Stationary relative to a car moving down the street at 50 kph?

Keeping an object over "IT": Does "it" refer to a specific point on the surface of the earth, or in alignment with the earth and the sun, or what?

While you are attaching your "dangling object" what is the motion of you and your object while you are attaching it? If you are standing (holding the object) you and the object are moving at the same rate as the ground upon which you are standing. That means that there is no inertia or momentum to be overcome.

Your "what ifs" at the end change the parameters and give you an entirely different problem to solve.

Oops... Maybe I shouldn't say anything since I'm not an atheist!

a bit but the object, when being held, is going at the same speed and when it is dropped so as te earth moves so does the object and the object still moves. Think of it like this if you are on a train you are going at the same speed of the train

Still air moves at the same rate as the earth. Next?

Why aren't you asking this in a science category? What, do you think all atheists are physicists? Additionally, do you need an atheist to justify things that are pretty easily observable facts?

I'm struggling to understand why this "question" is aimed at atheists. Have you any idea what the word means?

Put this question in the science section, not religion.

Why don't you ask the devout Christians Galileo, Kepler or Copernicus?

Your question does not even make sense. Are you really that ignorant? Even the Vatican astronomers of pope Urban VIII, knew that the Earth moves.

Everything is relative. What we see as stationary on earth is actually moving at the same speed as earth is spinning.