Jeri - what you say is interesting, because I experienced these questions too.

You write " I just thought a lot about the possibility of a mystical consciousness behind everything and decided it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me" I once had a similar idea of what God might be. At varying times I thought God might be the energy that flows through all living things, at another, i thought god might just be our collective consciousness and so on through endless combinations. But one day I realised what 'didn't make sense' about this picture: a God that is merely some form of energy or life force has no personality, anymore than any other form of energy does. You cannot have a relationship with this kind of 'God' anymore than you can with the electricity coming from the socket in your wall. Belief in God is a lot about your personal relationship with him. Once you make this 'breakthrough' God becomes as real as a family relative living in another town or country - though you can't see them, you 'know' they exist ('stop! You're scaring me now!!') Seriously, though, I find it hard to explain in any other way and science isn't able to prove any of this of course (otherwise it wouldn't be 'faith', would it?)

Another interesting point you mentioned was "I saw that all these people believed in a different version of God, and so I figured they were all right, or none were right. I went with the 'none"
That does strike me as odd though - why would you have plumped for 'none'? Perhaps one of them was right? If 7 witnessess give 7 versions of an event, just because the 7 versions are different, does it logically mean they are all wrong? One of them may be correct, but the big question of course is 'which one'? That is the part that's up to each of us to discover ourselves.
Of course it's very confusing when everyone says their 'particular version' is right. But if you then decide they are all equally right or wrong, you end up in the quagmire called 'moral relativism' where nothing is right or wrong. Sounds like a tolerant place to be until someone robs you, or murders someone, then we condemn it...but wait, if there is no right or wrong, why do we condemn it?? The fact that there is a kind of common cause amongst many religions (especially the monotheisms) is noteworthy in itself. We might ask, why is it that all these religions share these values?

Plus, there is another, logical argument against relativism. Realtivism is based on the axiom that "There is no such thing as absolute truth". But that statement is in fact an absolute statement. It is either true or it is not. Therefore, if it is correct, it denies itself: the statement itself cannot be true, being an absolute. If the statement is not true, it must be false. Therefore, it is false to say 'there is no such thing as absolute truth'. Therefore, absolute truth (i.e something which cannot be denied) exists. Kinda makes my head spin, too, but there you have it.

I can understand why some parents teach their children a few facts about several religions or none at all. All the religious wars etc., are a poor advertisement for those who'd like to be religious. But people have killed and died in the name of many 'isms' - capitalism, communism you name it-ism. And if you live a materialistic life, focused on making money and so on (capitalism), this is as much a statement of what you believe worthwhile (obviously) as a person who goes to church every week.

Teaching no religious beliefs - this is a statement in itself too, it tells your kids you think no religious beliefs are worth having. We try and teach our kids the things that we consider to be important to their life and welfare. No parent that I know tells their children nothing about drugs and lets them experiment and decide for themselves. Or if their kids were marrying someone the parents thought to be a scoundrel. Once over 18 of course, parents have much less say in the matter, but they would always make their opinion known.
And if you have religious beliefs, you are most likely be trying to teach them to your kids in the first place.

Teaching all religious beliefs in bare outline - this too is a statement. It tells your kids that all religions are equally valid - and therefore equally invalid. If that's the case, why would anyone bother to follow any particular one? We only follow a religion because we believe it has something more worthwhile to offer that the others don't. If you were offered a free car, you would choose the one with the best features, right? In any case the kids will watch what their parents DO as much as (or more than) what they say. If the parents themselves follow no religion, the kids may well ask themselves "Then why should I?" If the parents follow one religion, once again they will probably teach this one in-depth to their kids and perhaps give a few facts about the others. They are also likely to explain to their kids WHY they follow this particular religion (as much as we explain to kids why we do anything in particular that we think is important - for exmple, I'm sure you've heard parents telling kids why it's wrong to steal etc.,)

BTW, I should add that when I say 'religion' I am not talking about the mere sets of rules and observances that go with each, such as not eating meat, or washing hands and feet before eating, etc., What I'm talking about is of course the core beliefs and teachings - the doctrine.