Not sure where you're getting that "non one seemed to be bothered by the bombings" angle. The nuclear attacks against Japan during WWII have been a hotly debated topic before and after the bombs use.

Some even tried to frame the attacks as war crimes:

Early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:

Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?

"Leo Szilard, Interview: President Truman Did Not Understand.". U.S. News and World Report. 15 August 1960. pp. 68–71.

Others argued they were militarily unnecessary

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

"United States Strategic Bombing Survey; Summary Report". United States Government Printing Office. 1946. p. 26

I know linking to wikipedia here is frowned upon, but here is a fairly well cited wikipedia article about the subject.

I don't mean to justify one atrocity with another, but you compare the casualties of the nuclear attacks with the attack on Pearl Harbor. Have you looked into the "Rape of Nanking" or the "Bataan Death March"? I'm not trying to say the nuclear attacks were "deserved" but you seemed to gloss over the atrocities committed by the Japanese and imply the nuclear attacks were an "overreaction" to the Pearl Harbor attacks.

We were already killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese using traditional bombs. Many Japanese cities were over 90% destroyed. We dropped tens of millions of leaflets trying to warn people to stay out of cities and warning of our raids. We issued the Potsdam Declaration saying the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland", which they ignored. By the time we got to the bomb, about 3 million Japanese had already been killed.

Are deaths from nuclear weapons worse than deaths from traditional weapons? If so, is that a natural belief, or something that developed over time? Radiation was much less well understood, so the long term implications were not fully appreciated.

Over 25 million Chinese were killed. 3 million Japanese. Hundreds of thousands of US and allied forces. It's hard to really get upset about a weapon we didn't fully understand used against a nation that snuck attack our military and then did what they did to China, etc.

I can't say it was right, but it wasn't the genocide of an innocent and defenseless people, as most of what we declare atrocities are.

I'm having trouble understanding your question. Is your question "why is the general public (American?) fascinated by the bomb and not abhorred by it?" That is a question I can not answer (loaded question?) but maybe I can help with some of the background...

Quoting /u/t-o-k-u-m-e-i link

It’s important to realize that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not, at first, particularly novel experiences for Japan. The firebombing of Tokyo had a higher death toll (estimates from 80,000-200,000; 130,000 a commonly cited figure) than either in terms of people killed outright. The true horror of the atomic bombs did not become clear until weeks, months and years after the fact (For Hiroshima, roughly 70,000 people died in the initial blast, 100,000 by the end of the year, and over 200,000 in 5 years). While the new bomb did condense thousands of planes worth of destruction into a single bomb, the actual level of destruction was not higher at the time that the Japanese government was making the decision to surrender. Disease and deaths from radiation would later change the balance of destruction, but it is incorrect to assume that the Japanese command was aware of the delayed effects of atomic bombs.

So from our present perspective yes the bombs were terrible but historians often take great measures to negate presentism and bias to understand what was going on at that time. Our perceptions of the bomb today don't really help in explaining the past. By the time the bombs were dropped, Japan had already experienced tremendous destruction via firebombing, which one may argue was more destructive than the bombs. Also the distinction between civilian and military targets was blurred as it was total war. Here is a quote from /u/poorlyexecutedjab in this thread.

What do you mean by "a purely military target"? Keep in mind that most military targets, be they infrastructure, production, command posts, bases, etc., were located in very close proximity to (if not intertwined with) population centers. By August 6th 1945, valuable military targets were concentrated within Japan as all other Japanese military threats (beyond the Japanese archipelago) had either been eliminated or bypassed, negating any immediate threat to Allied forces. Hiroshima was selected due to its largely intact military infrastructure.

Now for your query..

I know that the bombing stopped the war and Japan surrendered and everything but do correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost seemed like an excuse to try just test the bombs and also some racism.

Whether the bomb ended the war is a very complex question that I can not add to but I recommend reading these past threads. Perhaps Japan's surrender is more nuanced and complex than you have been led to believe.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong but why does every site I go to act fascinated by it and not utterly disgusted. It's is almost as if this wouldn't be the case if they thought of them as people.

I would need to see your sources but perhaps this is because, as I mentioned earlier, historians go through great lengths to not push modern biases and political views.

If you were to write a history saying that Truman was a demon who had no respect for human life, and the bomb was bad, this would not hold much historical insight and would be frowned upon. Conversely if you wrote that Truman had no choice because the Japanese were crazy and America did the right thing, bravely sparing millions of lives from a ground invasion, this would also be just as useless. Perhaps this is why the tone of history you are reading is more diplomatic.

Sorry I can not answer your question directly but I fear it might not get a definitive answer on this sub without clarification.