Would atheist worship The biblical God if his existence was proven?

[Angrboda]

Positive existential claims, the claim that something exists, bear a clear burden of proof. Claiming that you don't have to meet your burden of proof because someone else has not met theirs is an example of a tu quoque argument, and therefore fallacious. Even if your opponent were proven not to be able to meet his burden of proof, it would not absolve you of the obligation to meet your burden of proof. And for what it's worth, the claim that something does not exist is not a positive existential claim and so would never have the same apportionment of burden of proof as a positive existential claim, as negative existential claims are notoriously difficult to prove, thus apportioning more than a modest burden of proof - easily met by a lack of positive evidence - upon such claims prior to assent would result in a logical explosion of undismissed absurdities, which, of necessity would result in provisional assent to contradictory assertions; in case you're unfamiliar with the form, this results in a disproof of your claim that it shares equal burden of proof by reductio ad absurdum.

Of course, I probably lost you after the first sentence, so, whatever. You still haven't given me the terms of the deal so I can do my cost/benefit analysis on whether worshipping is warranted by the ratio of cost to benefit.