No worries. But I don't think your call is actually equivalent to what I said.
Try answering the 'air' question/
Well, by example of your own analogy, you should be able to answer the question. I'll go ahead and answer yours first though and then I'll explain.
If I discovered irrefutable evidence that there was no such thing as air or atmospheric gases for that matter, I would continue to breath. The change in the understanding would not alter fundamental necessities for survival.
Now, if irrefutable evidence of the lack of existence of your god were presented then your god not being there, having already been non-existent(merely finally disproved), would not suddenly alter the workings of existence- just like the discovery of there being no air would not stop me from breathing.
However, the fundamental difference between breathing the non existent air and believing in the non-existent god is that breathing remains vital for survival and will continue to happen and belief in the god does not and should not continue to happen.
So, by all means, you should be able to answer the OP's question. Make the assumption that there was no god in the first place (just like there was no air) and answer based off of that.
Answer it like it was asked: "What would you do if someone suddenly told you the correct answer?" "Now, how would you alter your life from this point on, based on that knowledge?"