I have other things to do with my evening, so I will probably not be responding to further posts on this thread until tomorrow, and I may not wind up getting back to this thread at all. If someone else would like to pick up the conversation, that's fine with me.

Until we have AGI it will always be humans who will judge what is rational and what isn't. I don't see my points as being contradictory to the site's intention unless you want to assert that there is an absolute judge of rationality somewhere.

False dichotomy. There are definitely other options between considering all rationality subjective and requiring there to be one person who has all the answers. Many topics have been discussed here and elsewhere in the rationalist community and are considered resolved; our normal method is to use those as benchmarks.

Passed a certain threshold of rationality? What would that threshold be?

Opening that question for discussion was a large part of the point of the original post; I expect it to be answered within the next few days. Also note that the question is context-specific: I'm only referring to the expected-rationality threshold here at Less Wrong.

Do you think that Aumann has passed this threshold? Who will judge who passed it and who didn't? Of course we could use religion as a filter but this only tells us that religion has become a salient example of supposed irrationality.

Religion is one of the benchmarks, yes, and there are reasons for that. (No, I don't intend to discuss them; perhaps some of the other posters will give you relevant links if you ask.) As to how the passing of those benchmarks is judged, the whole group is involved in that by way of voting and discussion, and so far that appears to be a useful method that's less subject to bias than traditional forums with formal moderation.

As for the non-subjective definition of rationality I think this is highly questionable even from a bayesian perspective. I'll say it again: even bayesian superintelligences will disagree if they have different priors. So the question becomes: is there a correct prior? AFAIK this question is still open.

We don't have a rationally-determined, uncontroversial method for determining priors, so that obviously won't be one of the benchmarks that we expect people to pass. Using Bayesian reasoning could be, though, or updating because of evidence regardless of the method.