Many Americans look back on Aug 6th and 9th, 1945 as smear on America's legacy as a world superpower. Some view it as a strong show of power, and it was a phenomenon that strengthened our stance as a world superpower.
One of the main cons that many people like to mention is the loss of civilian life when the bombs dropped. Between those who were incinerated instantly, those who died of radiation sickness hours, days, or weeks later, and those who managed to live with cancer or other harmful side effects from the blast, the estimated death toll from Little Boy and Fat Man is around 129,000 people, mostly civilians (number was pulled from here. It's worth mentioning there is no reference or citation).
However, many forget to consider the option of invading mainland Japan. The culture of Imperialist Japan can be grossly summarized as "For the Emperor!". With this in mind, it seems likely that entire cities, villages, and countrysides would have armed themselves to fight American soldiers, and the death toll could have been potentially much higher.
In regards to the human death toll, considering both Japanese and American causalities/deaths, do you think that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was actually the smarter decision?
(Are you really asking a question or are you stating your opinion? It feels like the latter with your "many forget"...)
The options were not, and were never conceived at the time to be, a choice between land invasion and dropping two atomic bombs on two cities. There were several other possibilities discussed. I have written about some of them here. Even the US military did not think that a land invasion was probably necessary, in retrospect:
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.
One does not have to take their assessment as gospel — it was motivated by its own reasonings, some of which are debatable — but I like to offer that up just as a counterpoint to people who cling desperately to the idea that it was really a "bomb or invade" decision. The "bomb or invade" version of the story only became common around 1947, and was propagated by people who planned the atomic bombing (Stimson, Groves, Conant, others), because they wanted to shape the narrative about the bomb. The reason they wanted to do this was because many people, including high-level members of the military (like Leahy and Eisenhower) were going on the record saying they thought the bombings were unnecessary.
Most historians that I know who study this believe that the attack on Hiroshima was probably to some extent inevitable given the circumstances but that the attack on Nagasaki was probably avoidable. See this thread for more discussion on that.
(Separately, if you look beyond the summary paragraph of the Wikipedia article you will find many detailed discussions of casualty estimates with many citations.)
You may be interested in reading this section of our FAQ on atomic bomb targeting and deployment, mostly contributed by u/restricteddata, but the short answer to your question is that the idea that planners were deciding between either a bomb or an invasion is ahistorical -- it's something that comes up in the postwar as a post hoc justification for the bombings.