Alfred Jules Ayer: 1) "He believed that religious language was unverifiable and as such literally nonsense. Consequently "There is no God" was for Ayer as meaningless and metaphysical an utterance as "God exists." Though Ayer could not give assent to the declaration "There is no God," he was an atheist in the sense that he withheld assent from affirmations of God's existence. However, in "Language, Truth and Logic" he distinguishes himself from both agnostics and atheists by saying that both these stances take the statement "God exists" as a meaningful hypothesis, which Ayer himself does not. That stance of a person who believes "God" denotes no verifiable hypothesis is sometimes referred to as igtheism (defined in Paul Kurtz, The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge, ISBN 0-87975-766-3, page 194)" Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Jules_Ayer 2) "In seeking to refound philosophy as an analytic discipline, Ayer was not just trying to separate philosophy from life but to liberate life from philosophy. As he saw it, philosophers had traditionally set out to establish themselves as authorities on the fundamental nature of the universe and the character of right and wrong. They posited immutable laws of nature, claimed to show that the world was one, or pretended to demonstrate the existence of supersensible realms of being; they invented gods, divine commands and human ends, and sought in that way to tell people how to live. To Ayer all this was not only unjustified — talk of supernatural reality, of beings existing outside space and time, or of the fundamental unity of things was literally senseless — but also reactionary. In narrowing the possibilities of experience, in placing limits on the findings of science and in dictating what was right and wrong, philosophy had become a cramping distorting discipline. The promise of life after death, the conception of earthly life as representing a punishment for inherited sin, the belief that pleasure was evil, had terribly oppressive effects. With metaphysics banished, science could develop unfettered, and people would become more experimental, more open to other points of view, more tolerant in thought and practice. They would, in particular, become less likely to engage in religious and ideological wars. Above all else, Ayer hoped, men and women would realise that this life was the only life they have, and would thus become more appreciative of what it had to offer. Which is where the football, the dancing and the love affairs come in. Ben Rogers, in the Preface to ''A.J. Ayer: A Life (1999) p. 3" Source and further information: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alfred_Jules_Ayer 3) "‘God-talk is evidently nonsense’ – A.J. Ayer" "The view that God-talk is nonsense also contradicts atheism and agnosticism, because these regard statements about God as meaningful but either untrue or uncertain. Plain English Paraphrase: Ayer’s view is different from typical atheist and agnostic approaches. Typically, they would regard the existence of God as a possibility, but there isn’t enough evidence for them to believe. Yet, for Ayer, statements about God do not even make sense, so his views are not compatible with more traditional atheism. The atheist’s argument that there is no God also has no sense, for there’s no real method for testing that view. Similarly, the agnostic wrongly supposes that the question of whether God exists is a genuine one. Statements and questions about God have no sense, so agnosticism is also ruled out. Context: This second paragraph develops Ayer’s claim that God-talk is meaningless and that God’s existence is not even probable. Here, Ayer demonstrates the implications of his view for atheism and agnosticism. These perspectives are misguided, because they assume that religious language is meaningful. In the next paragraph, Ayer will move on to consider and dismiss the possibility of a non-empirical or super-empirical God. " Source and further information: http://intranet.wellingtoncollege.org.uk/resource.aspx?id=145043

I guess we know now...I wish I would have said it. Its what I am thinking.

Beware of liguists and "philospers" who like to expound ad nauseum about their discoveries. However, non sense does lend itself to the credible since you must remove your awareness of the senses and focus on what is beyond to even see what God is about. You need to look with your spiritual eye not the physical anything, so non-sense actually does apply.