a) Clarify / examine the argument and / or interpretation in the passage. 
First summarise in your own words what the overall message of the passage is e.g.
In paragraph one Ayer is suggesting that philosophers generally agree that the existence of a transcendent God, the god of Classical Theism, cannot be ‘demonstratively proved’ and that therefore any statements about this kind of God possess no ‘literal significance.’ [Obviously there is more that can be said even in this summary.]
Do drop in the odd direct quote from the passage see ‘….’
Then explain any concepts which need explaining to a non-specialist e.g.
Arguments from the regularity of nature (teleological arguments) HP Owen notes ‘…the sense of God’s reality can be produced by the contemplation of beauty and order in nature.’ Isaac Newton agreed and so have plenty of scientists down the ages been convinced of the existence of God from the evidence in nature…
God is a metaphysical term…
Also explain his claims e.g.
- Philosophers generally admit…
- No way of proving
- Not even probable
- Cannot be true or false
- Religious language is meaningless…who says…Wittgenstein Religious Language Games
- No literal significance
- Bertrand Russell ‘deception is constantly practised with success.’ (Pinched from Donovan!)
Then put or explain that there may be other viewpoints e.g.
Not all philosophers…what about theists and other religious people? Examples of religious philosophers and modern religious thinkers like John Polkinghorne, John Hick, Richard Swinburne, FC Copleston… just because Dawkins is such a popular and frequent contributor to media debates about these issues doesn’t make his view the only one!
Some would argue that God’s existence is an empirical hypothesis… e.g. those who have had religious experiences such as St Teresa of Avila who said
‘…it is wholly impossible for me to doubt that I have been in God and God in me.‘ For her it was a wholly empirical experience if not verifiable…
Cumulative weight of evidence of arguments for God’s existence… Swinburne…
Lots of assertions are made which cannot be empirically verified ‘I love John’ ‘he loves me’ ‘that is an ugly piece of art.’ Doesn’t mean they are necessarily meaningless.
Meaningless to whom?
You can also begin by putting his opinion in a context e.g.
Ayer was one of the Logical positivists, Vienna Circle, 1920s -30’s; they believed… verification…
types of language…
b) Do you agree with the ideas expressed? Justify your point of view and discuss its implications for understanding religious and human experience. 
In my opinion… talk about the existence of God is meaningful. Not just for the believer but also for the non-believer. Religion is a worldwide phenomenon it would be short-sighted to ignore the fact that many people are affected, live their lives by and meaningfully practice a religion.
For example… Gandhi…mother Teresa…Martin Luther King (plus possibly some Biblical or other religious examples)
I take the point that perhaps we can come to no universally agreed upon conclusions as to the exact nature of what ever God we might be investigating but it cannot be pointless to try. Swinburne called God ‘transcategorical’… but as humans we live and grow by learning more about our environment and the world which we inhabit.
I agree that religion has had as many detrimental effects as positive ones e.g…. list a few of each… people / events / art / literature etc
However any phenomena which has had such an effect and impact on society must be subject to investigation and to do that we must talk about it…
Do fling in the philosophers names particularly Swinburne, Russell, Dawkins and some of the more important experients e.g. St Teresa etc.
Find some good quotes that will do for all uses and learn them.