Your question is weak. Yes, the concept is ridiculous. And stupid.
Is this your way of not addressing why atheists need a chaplain?
We can add this to the list: atheist churches, magazines, radio station, protests, lawsuits, activism, etc. Such an irrational bunch.
I agree that it
sounds silly to use the term Chaplain - it may even
be silly. However, I would argue that atheist soldiers benefit from having the ability to go to someone who shares their outlook to discuss issues or concerns that they might have in the same way that a Christian soldier benefits from going to a Chaplain for. Of course, I would
also argue that a "therapist" is better suited that chaplains in filling that role, for
all soldiers, theist and atheist.
But the fact is that we have chaplains in the army today. With that in mind, should soldiers who follow pastafarianism have access to a Pastafarian chaplain? What about Jedi soldiers? Or native American soldiers? Or any other number of religions? Again, you may find some of religions silly, perhaps even outright stupid. But there are people who find your religious beliefs silly or even stupid, so that's not really an argument for not having pastafarian ministers or Jedi pastors, or Native American medicine men or whatever else.
Or, to put the question more broadly, on what grounds should we decide which religions or viewpoints get military chaplains?
How about you answer
that question?