Beginner not blundering to unknown openings (how many openings to know and how deep?)

I have found myself in a losing position recently in the first five moves after playing e4. I found myself up against the Alekhine and Scandinavian specifically and I had never seen those openings and fell into a terrible position in the first few moves.
As a beginner I know I shouldn't* spend a lot of time on openings but I want to expand my knowledge so I don't find myself in an unknown situation on move 3. 
I play e4 as white, does that mean I need to know how to play against all of the following?

1. …c5 (Sicilian Defense)
2. ...e5 (Kings Pawn Opening)
3. ...e6 (French Defense)
4. ...c6 (Caro-Kann Defense)
5. ...d6 (Pirc Defense)
6. ...g6 (Modern Defense)
7. ...d5 (Scandanavian Defense)
8. ...Nf6 (Alekhine’s Defense)

As black I have started learning the Sicilian Dragon against e4 and the King's Indian Defense against d4, but what if my opponent plays the Closed Sicilian?

So the question I guess is, how familiar do I need to be with the e4 responses as white? How many lines should I know? 
And as black how do I even go about knowing what variations are possible against me playing Sicilian and KID? 

Openings are not that important for beginners. Opening principles are. Eventually through time you will learn little by little about openings you play.

So yes, if you play e4, that means that you will learn some moves against everything you have mentioned. As black, you will learn something against open sicilian, closed sicilian,c3 sicilian, smith morra...

How will you do it? You will build your knowledge slowly like building a house. When you analyze your game, you will see where you have made an inaccurate move thanks to the engine and opening database... That way you will play that variation a bit better next time.

That way you will learn openings without actually learning them. Only when you get a lot stronger, you might want to seriously study opening lines.

There are openings which are a bit inferior but works very well against an opponent who has no idea what to do against it. The cure is either to study the theory or to use cope out lines, moves not best but playable. You have to develop your chess common sense to find those, but it's a useful skill that will help you develop as a chess player, finding logical moves in an unknown situation.

Against the Scandinavian maybe Bc4-d3-Nge2 is more safe to play than d4 lines. Against the Alekhine there is no question about it, White should just play 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 then Be2 with a solid position (which is the main line, somewhat unfortunately).

Don't worry about specific openings. Instead, look at the board and make educated decisions on what moves to make, not just memorized openings.

No, you don't need to have serious preparation for a single one of them in fact. Stick with opening principles and avoid blundering pieces. If you think opening prep is really mattering in your games, show us some of your games where this was the case. 

Develop pieces in a natural way. 90% of times you're not falling for a trap, especially at your rating range. If you see a move that develops a piece to a useful square or does not hinder the future development of another piece, go for it.

If you really feel like openings are your weakness, trade off pawns or minor pieces when you have the option. That way you will only be down by a small margin of development if you're clueless to your opponent's opening.

+1

You are at too early of a stage to be studying openings.  You need to understand first what you are doing.  Memorizing lines is useless.

Take the following example:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 - Why did Black play this way?  Why not 1...d6 and 2...e5?  Same thing, right?  Uhm, no!  The d4 pawn is protected (by the Queen).  The e4-pawn is not and requires a reaction from White.

Why are 3.Nc3, 3.e5, and even 3.Nd2 better than 3.exd5?  Can you answer that?  If not, you do not understand the crux of Black's problem in the French!

3.exd5 opens up Black's light-squared Bishop.  His problem piece

Why is 3.Nc3 better than 3.Nd2?  While 3.Nd2 avoids the pin, it bottles up the rest of White's pieces.  The Knight blocks the c1 Bishop, which in turn blocks the a1 rook.

Why is 3...c5 almost obligatory against 3.e5, best against 3.Nd2, and terrible against 3.Nc3?

It all has to do with d5.  While c7-c5 attacks d4, the situation with d5 is unsettled.  After 3.e5, White takes a commanding lead in space in the center.  In return, d5 is no longer under pressure and is Black's strong point.  He needs to gain space, and the best way to do it is expand on the Queenside and pressure d4 while doing it to try to break up White's pawn chain.

After 3.Nd2, white is bottled up, and Black should attack the center immediately.  It is well known that a defending pawn 3 squares from the Knight is good because it stops the Knight's 2 best moves, Ne4 and Nc4.  These can also become outposts for the Black Knights.  With Nd2, it will take for ever for a White Knight to attack d5, so a trade on d5 followed by a trade on c5 or d4 leaves Black with an isolated pawn, but with no good way for White to attack it, Black gets excellent piece activity.

After 3.Nc3, c5?? Is terrible because the center has not been settled (White will trade on d5, not advance e5) and now the d5-pawn is directly hit by the White Knight, and it is easy to get other pieces into the attack on d5 as his position is not bottled up.

It is crucial that you UNDERSTAND the point behind the opening moves for multiple reasons:

1) If your opponent plays a sideline or goes out of book, you should be able to figure out for yourself what is systemically wrong with their idea.  It could weaken a key square in their camp.  It could simply be no pressure on you and you get a free game without having to worry about Defense (like playing early a3 and h3 by White).

2) Your opponent plays a weird move order that has transpositional possibilities, like in the Najdorf, the Knight almost never goes to c6, but what about 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 and now what?  4.d4 is coming anyway and he avoided the Najdorf.  Important to know these nuances!

3)  At your level, rarely are people still in book after move 5.

4) Usually you do not know all the legit responses anyway.  What about 1...Nc6, Nimzowitsch's Defense, just to name an example!

Go for middlegame ideas and opening CONCEPTS first.  Control the center, do not move the same piece multiple times, Queen should stay home early on, etc.

Knowing how to refute basic openings is another thing, people that play weird things against you generally aren't always playing the most sound openings, you'll need specific preparation to counter things like the Stafford Gambit, for example. That you should be studying as you run into sideline openings.

here are some things you can try to do against these openings without needing to know theory

…c5 (Sicilian Defense) play the smith morra gambit, develop your pieces fast and prove that better development is worth a pawn

...e5 (Kings Pawn Opening) play the danish gambit, with a pretty similar strategy to the smith morra

...e6 (French Defense) play the advanced variation, make sure to protect your pawn chain and laugh at your opponents cramped position.

...c6 (Caro-Kann Defense) here too you can play the advanced variation

...d6 (Pirc Defense) grab the center with d4 and maybe even f4

...g6 (Modern Defense) you can try an idea of bobby fischer, the immediate h4!? intending to pry open blacks kingside and endanger blacks king 

...d5 (Scandanavian Defense) just take the pawn and then attack the queen with Nc3 with a nice position

...Nf6 (Alekhine’s Defense) attack blacks knight with your pawns and prove that black has played a meme of an opening with your pawn mass

i agree that learning openings can be quite useful for beginners so long as they are focusing on understanding the concept behind the moves as opposed to memorizing many practically useless lines of theory.

There's nothing wrong with learning a little about the openings--even at an early stage. The opening is part of the game too! But everyone is correct when they say you don't have t learn any lines in depth. Two good opening books designed for less experienced players are "Openings for Amateurs" by Peter Tamburro , and "Winning Chess Openings" by Yasser Seirawan. Both of these books focus more on understanding, not memorization

You could always have a backup system to play vs unfamiliar openings that stems from your first move, or you could play an opening where there are almost 0 ways to take you into unfamiliar territory and still have it be sound, like the Reti or the English.

I'll leave the discussion on openings to others.

I'll just share my observations. I did a quick scan of your last few games (5-6 rapid games), but no in depth analysis. Two against a much higher rated player. But anyway,
Last game you played the fried liver, which is cool. But, as a general rule, if you want to play overly aggressive on move 4 before developing your pieces, then knowing the opening definitely is necessary.
The other game against the same player, you played Sicilian, which some consider to be too difficult for beginners. It didn't matter, you were roughly equal until move 14.
Game before that, as black, you were ahead -9.01 on move 18, even though you played the difficult Sicilian defense.
Game before that, you had 2 missed wins, but still you were equal until move 14 or 15
Game before that, you were ahead until move 15.
I looked at one more game. Same story, you are ahead until move 14-15.

I don't think you have an opening problem. I had to go 6 games to find a game where you messed up the opening. Again with a fried liver.