One of the things I think we should do is fight "scientism" with actual science. Scientism is not provable, but just a bunch of hypothesis, usually too complex for anyone to question.
Science is repeatable, and verifiable. It should always welcome questions and new hypothesis to fill in the gaps.
So one thing I thought about a lot is how we learn that Force = Mass x Acceleration.
For me, this is the MAIN argument against a heliocentric model. If we are rotating at 1,000mph plus the crazy speeds for orbiting plus universe expansion, we MUST feel some force. If we cannot, it must be provable in a model why we don't feel the force.
Anyways throwing this out there. I think in general, this is the best start to bring up this topic of flat earth, that the earth is first and foremost stationary vs moving.
Would love others thoughts/input.
I believe you're spot on. I often just sit outside, look up and marvel at our realm with absolutely no sense of motion. I remember on Nova back in the 1980's talking about the stars and why they don't move because they are so far away. Well, 40 years later, still to motion and beyond that, in 4,000 plus years, no change in the position of the stars even after moving at over 1 million miles per hour. Makes you go Hmmmmm?