False analogies–false analogies everywhere.
Let’s start here: Contemporaneous records for Abraham Lincoln exist. Contemporaneous records for Jesus of Nazareth (or was it Bethlehem?) do not exist. Unlike Jesus, it is significantly more likely that Abraham Lincoln existed than that he did not exist. In that regard alone, the two are not analogous.
2:25 It is the believer, not the skeptic, who claims that “if Abraham exists, then vampires exist”; or “if Muhammad exists, then jinn exist”; or “if Jesus exists, then demons exist.” It is the believer who accepts the legend along with the history. A good skeptic fails to see sufficient evidence for the extraordinary claims about vampires, jinn, and demons, but will be less skeptical about the existence of Abraham, Muhammad, and Jesus–all depending on the evidence.
Some propositions are highly likely to be true (Muhammad existed, Abraham Lincoln existed); some are highly unlikely to be true (Krishna existed, Athena existed); and some are uncertain (Jesus existed, King Arthur existed). All of this is quantifiable via Bayesian inference, if you want to get pedantic about it.
“A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence,” as Hume famously wrote. It was true then, and it remains true now. How often do we have to repeat this before it begins to sink in?