...I've been curious about the Flat Earth Society. I started questioning my belief that the earth is round. All my life I have known the earth to be round, I did not question this since everything I was taught growing up says that the earth is a sphere/or spheroid. I've always questioned whether we have actually landed on the moon, I find it hard to believe that any human can travel very far beyond our atmosphere due to what would be involved in space travel and the dangers.
Its also hard to believe that the earth is flat. I question the reasons why so many would hide the truth. Seems to me that there would be a lot of effort in keeping a secret with little benefit. What is the reason for this lie?
My main question is why can i not see mount everest or mauna kea? If the earth is indeed flat why have I seen a planes vapor trail dissapear into the ground? With the technology we have today, it should be easy to prove what's true. Which is probably why I'm agnostic, I need to see to believe.
Regardless, any evidence you come across that helps you decide the shape of the earth, your conclusion will come as a result of inductive reasoning. In a purely logical sense, you will never know with absolute certainty (i.e. you cannot know beyond all doubt) what the shape of the earth is, even if you see the entire thing with your own eyes (e.g. your eyes may not accurately perceive the true nature of the earth, etc.)
So, first, you need to choose what question you are asking. For example, are you asking what the shape of the earth is based upon your observation of it, thereby eliminating the problem of flawed perception? My guess is that, yes, you probably are, because this is practical information that you can use given that you already navigate your environment via perception. It presumably wouldn't do us a lot of practical good to care more about the shape of the earth irrespective of our perception of it.
So, since were concerned about formulating a conclusion about the shape of the earth that is congruent with our perception of it and which is derived through inductive reasoning, you to need to form the best conclusion based upon the information that's available to us.
So, let's form a null hypothesis: "The earth is observably flat." This hypothesis makes a prediction, namely that when you look at the earth in its entirety, it will appea flat. Can you test this hypothesis directly? Theoretically, yes (e.g. astronauts have), but not practically since you personally do not have the resources available.
So, what's the next best thing you can do? Well, you can look at the evidence collected by others and formulate a model that best incorporates all of the data. If some evidence is excluded from the model because it cannot be explained by it, then a better model is required.
Saving citations of countless examples, a rejection of the null hypothesis is inevitable -- no, the world is not flat. There are countless problems with a flat earth, problems that are better explained by an oblately spherical earth than a flat one. Actually, I have yet to come across a single piece of data that isn't reconciled by the spherical model, regardless of whether the data is obtained via direct observation or from a 3rd-party source.
Simply put, an oblately spherical earth is a better model. You shouldn't be as concerned about knowing "absolutely" what the shape of the earth is as you should be concerned about what the best conclusion is, especially since the nature of the hypothesis 'a priori' necessitates a conclusion derived through inductive reasoning.
TL;DR: Needing to see with your own eyes is overrated. Not in all instances, but in this one it is. This isn't a question like "do ghosts exist?" which tests a limit of the scientific method that does not permit scientific conclusions to be drawn about events that are too rare, too small, or too big to be explained via the collection of observable, replicable data. The earth is our home and we have persisting access to it. Accordingly, all you need to do is form a model that accounts for all of the data. To that end, we have fucking photos of earth from space. Enough said. If you distrust those photos, then change your null hypothesis and focus on the pictures' validity. Just know that if you do then you are opening yourself up to social scrutiny and the consequences thereof.