Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.
Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.
Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.
Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?
You've been there, I take it?
Um... so you are demonstrating you have no logic or "common sense".
You don't need to be there. Everyone (~billion people) south of the equator can SEE (<- one of your senses) it. Furthermore, as it is in the SKY, we don't actually need to go to Antarctica to SEE the SKY above it. As I said earlier, a star's declination = latitude. So the stars BELOW the SCP are on the other side of the Earth from you. <--- logic, "common sense".
If this is NOT good enough for you, I really feel sorry for you. So, you don't believe countries and continents exist if you personally haven't SEEN them. Really?
I apologize, I misread your original statement as the South Pole, rather than the South Celestial Pole.
Again, you're conflating two ways in which something may conflict with the senses. The first way is a mere absence from the senses. For instance, infrared light or distant continents. This does not conflict with your sensory data; it is merely absent from it. It is not that your senses are saying "it is not there"; rather, it is that your senses are not saying "it is there." In the first way, your senses have formulated a belief about this-or-that; in the second way, your senses have not formulated a belief at all.
My senses have not formulated a belief that "infrared light does not exist," or "Africa does not exist," as these are absent from my senses completely. Hence, indirect evidence involving infrared light or Africa will not conflict with a prior belief. However, my senses have formulated a belief that the earth is a flat plane; indirect evidence involving its rotundity therefore will conflict with a prior belief.
The next question becomes what "aids" do you consider viable?
Since it is unlikely you will actually see cells in your body without a microscope, do you believe your eyes when looking through one? What about an electron microscope (pictures on a screen)?
Going the other way, do you believe what you see with a telescope? A telescope with CCD cameras/computers attached?
What about cameras and pictures you take? Where do you draw the line when others take them? Why?
For me, I have done amateur astronomy with several telescopes, binoculars and cameras. As my views/pics look very much like others in magazines and on-line, I have little doubt of their validity (i.e. I have somewhat of a measure of what "fake" may be). Sure, there are corrected pictures (that unless explicitly trying to force something, are usually OK because they are making pictures look as we would expect them - increased contrast, saturation, gamma correction, seams disappearing, etc.) and "Photoshopped"/"fake" pictures. But... not all pictures are "fake" and even enhanced ones are not necessarily fake (like the photos you take through your digital camera). So just because NASA or someone corrects images or even produces "fake" ones (sometimes for presentations or PR/advertising) that does not mean it does it to ALL pics. Also, unless you know what the pics are supposed to look like, you can't cry "fake" because they are not what you expect.
Also, EVERYONE has different experiences with what they used their senses for. So although YOU may not have seen, smelled, tasted, touched, heard something, some, perhaps many other people have.
People on this forum love to tell REers they have been lied to and indoctrinated - as if they haven't been by FEers. This is very insulting (I think it is a debate tactic to get a rise out of people - pathetic really). Many of the people here have tested stuff (like me and amateur astronomy). Sorry, but the things I have seen and measured independently (for me) verify my RE concept. I have not seen ANYTHING to make me even begin to take the FE concept seriously. Based on the stuff presented in this forum, I seriously doubt anyone in the scientific community would even seriously look at a FE - not because of indoctrination, but because there is literally nothing here. What would you write a scientific paper on? Sandokhan's copy/paste? Antarctica "wall" conspiracy? A flat horizon? John Davis' infinite plane with domes on it? ... to make it perfectly simple - no map, no model.