Why might we suggest religious language is meaningless?

The view that religious language is meaningless is most associated with A. J. Ayer and his theory of verificationism. Ayer posited that there is a general test (the verification principle) that can test whether a specific statement has meaning. When he applies this test to religious statements, he argues that they fail the test and are therefore meaningless. The verification principle is as follows - 'a statement is held to be literally meaningful if and only if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable.' (Note: this is a revised version of an earlier principle that Ayer laid out.) So - a statement has meaning if it is a) analytic, meaning it is true just by the meanings of the words - 'All bachelors are unmarried' is an example of this, or b) empirically verifiable, meaning we could observe empirical evidence which would establish the truth of the statement.
Let's now apply this to a religious statement, such as 'God exists.' Does this pass Ayer's test for meaning? Firstly, is it analytic? Ayer argues no - it is not part of the meaning of 'God' that he exists. Secondly, is it empirically verifiable? Again, Ayer argues no. God is part of a 'transcendent' metaphysical reality that exists outside our realm of sense experience. Therefore, there is no possible experience we could have, or observation we could make, which would establish the truth of the statement.