How do I respond to this?

"If there are some things, some believe, that are beyond reason and logic are what made hell a possibility, then Hell is as real as "The Lord of The Rings" and pop culture franchises."

P1) There are some things, some believe, that are beyond reason and logic

P2) These things make Hell a possibility

C) Thus, Hell is as real as 'The Lord of the Rings' and other pop culture franchises.

Firstly, if something is claimed to be "beyond reason and logic" then the person stating that the thing exists is making an unfalsifiable claim, and it should not be taken seriously without strong empirical support.

Secondly, we have an appeal to possibility as we move from P2 to C. Just because Hell is a possibility, does not mean it is real in any sense. Of course, the conclusion is expressing an analogy - by comparing Hell to Lord of the Rings (a fictional franchise), but this does little to help the argument, as it basically implies Hell is akin to a fictional story series - oh dear.

Once again, check your premises. The proposition begins with “if” and then sets up the premise with phraseology requiring you to accept the “if” as fact for the purpose of the statement. Don’t get sucked in and make the propositioner clearly state the proposition, then adduce evidence to support it. Otherwise, any discussion is a waste of time.

The argument is complete nonsense with zero deception, because one could reasonably claim that those things believed to be beyond reason and logic are of the imagination.

Hell has proven to be a figment of the imagination as great as LOTR and other myths, legends, and biblical beliefs.

Therefore, Hell is not real, but merely a figment of the human imagination.

"If there are some things, some believe, that are beyond reason and logic" 

Some do believe this but How would you even prove that some things that are beyond reason and logic"

"what made hell a possibility" -  Appeal to probability

"then Hell is as real as "The Lord of The Rings" and pop culture franchises."" - still opinion

The person has not proven anything, Maybe it is and maybe it is not.

I do not think there is a logically response to this other than calling it what it is.

It would be a valid argument if the argument was:

"The same things that are required and capable to make hell a reality are also required and capable to make "Lord of the rings" a reality.
Therefore, if Hell is real that means the things that make Hell real exist and therefore are responsible for making also the "Lord of the rings" real."
This would be valid due to Modus Ponens:
1)If P(things that make hell real exist)  then Q(Hell exists) and if Q(Hell exists) then P(things that make Hell real exists).  That is P <-> Q
2)If P(=things that make hell real exist)  then R("Lord of the rings" exists). P -> R
3)Q exists therefore P exists. Q -> P
4)Therefore (since P -> R), R.      
That would be a valid argument.

But since the required condition "The same things that make hell a reality are also responsible for making "Lord of the rings" a reality." is missing from the original argument, the conclusion  "Hell is as real as "The Lord of The Rings"" is totally unsupported and does not follow from the premise. So since the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise it is non sequitur 

I would imagine that initially what the person would want to say is "Hell is as real as Lord of the rings" period,  which is just an unsupported claim (may be true or may be false). But in the author's despair to make it appear as something more than an unsupported claim, they created a non-sequitur. And I'm saying that as an atheist myself, meaning I am someone who do believe that Hell is as real as Lord of the rings. But I know that that's not an argument, that's a claim.