The Anniversary of Battle of Qadesiya

Oh I didn't know that thanks, there exist word like that but it has no historical meaning! Iranians never called their lands with such terms opposing to Arabs who used to give names like or Belad al-Islam (as opposed to other lands not yet under Arab yoke, Bled al-Kofr literally meaning lands of the infidels), dar-al islam, Ghobat al-islam or such. And as I told before this term you use is not so surprising cause it's been a tradition sicne the dawn of Islam, Arabs as good example of this used to call other people who they didn't like (God knows why) like Iranians as "Majus" which was pejorative way of calling Iranians referring to their religion.  Another example is the name was prevalent as to refer to Romans "Kafir Rom" (heathen roams empire i.e. Byzanitines).

Now looking at the words like Iran, Eran, Kingdom of Persians, Eranshahr, that Iranians used to call their dominions which is a cultural, racial, lingual name not a name showing a religious attribute. But the matter people like you and some others used terms like Zorostrian Empire is just out of sense of taste and I again repeat it has no real historical meaning. 

What? who asked you not to use such terms, you can feel free. No one ever tried to imply not being proud of your belief.. heh I wonder how you've come to such conclusion!

the debate was obiously about the authenticity of the term " Zoroastrian Empire" in history. And people have come to see here that such term historically has no existence however on the contrary Arabs used to call their empires, capitals and cities with terms based on their religion. 

I didnt say it's out of taste in case of Iran. I just tried to say that if you are talking about history there has been no such a name "Zoroastrian Empire". And  For god's sake is it comparable to what you said about ancient Egypt? are you joking? 

Egypt is the name Greeks and Romans used for it. But it is quite another story.

You were talking about something like First Zoroastrian Empire and Second Zoroastrian Empire, which not only Iranians but no one ever called Iranian lands by those names throughout the history. There's no historical account that even the foreigners called Iran with those names. So those names are Irrelevant speaking of History but speaking of history.

For more clarification; every one with little knowledge of ancient history of middle east knows that during the times of Achaeminds it can not be proven that Zoroastrianism was of such importance in state policies plus during their time many subjects of the empire enjoyed complete freedom of religion. After that in times of Arsacids there is no evidence of state religion then comes the Sassanian period in which Zoroastrianism becomes the official state religion but it is important that nor the Sassanian neither their neighbours called their kingdom with terms like "Zoroastrian Empire" I hope it's capito this time.

I think the point you don't see is that the term does not exist historically as it is never mentioned in any historical text the term "Zaroastrian Empire" And i guess I explained enough the reason why Iran always called by Iranians or Foreigners under terms like Achaemid Empire, Persian Empire, Regno or impreo Parthorum, Parthia, Arsacid kingdom or empire, Sasanian kingdom or empire regardless the religion they were practising whether was it offical or not. So in historical texts we dont cross terms like the first Zoroastrian empire declined....or likewise.

here is the google search:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Zoroastrian+Empire&btnG=Search

in which firstly there's Sassanid Zoroastrian Empire, the Zoaroastrian here is an attributive for Sassanian empire to declare its religion but as a matter of fact in history there's no reference of Zoaroastrian Empire to the Sassanids. So the terms like this though just reflect some writers modern opinion and are inventive, which has no historical authencity.